KiXforms Forum Index KiXforms
The Forum for the KiXforms Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 Quick Links 
Site News
Downloads
Documentation
Donations
Script Archive
Tracking Systems

what is this new msi?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    KiXforms Forum Index -> KiXforms.NET Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Lonkero
KiXforms Devotee
KiXforms Devotee


Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 1022
Location: Espoo, Finland

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:31 pm    Post subject: what is this new msi? Reply with quote

judging by the size, you removed the kf installer and made standalone files for chm and kixforms.
what's the point in that?

_________________
Hammer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
benny69
KiXforms Advocate
KiXforms Advocate


Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 567
Location: Lincoln, Ne

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lol, Lonk you da man.
Good question, the reason that Shawn and I separated KF.NET and KFD is that as KF.NET is put into production very few people are going to want to have KFD installed on every machine that they want to use KF.NET on.

_________________
Wait don't order yet,... get KiXforms Designer .NET 2.0 (Beta)
KiXforms Designer .NET 2.0 (Beta)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sealeopard
KiXforms Aficionado
KiXforms Aficionado


Joined: 05 Mar 2003
Posts: 436
Location: Boston, MA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I actually like the split. Now, you can roll out KF .NET via GPO to everybody and KFD .NET to the developers only.
_________________
Jens

'There are two kinds of vessels, submarines and targets.'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Shawn
KiXforms Developer
KiXforms Developer


Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1983
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So that left only kf.net and the kf.chm ... same holds true for kf.chm ... what user is going to want that, and where would we put it even if they did.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Les
KiXforms Aficionado
KiXforms Aficionado


Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 317

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, what installer switches would you specify to install silent without the CHM?
_________________
The Repro Man
Stealing for a living!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shawn
KiXforms Developer
KiXforms Developer


Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1983
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The chm isn't in the installer. Its in the zip with the installer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lonkero
KiXforms Devotee
KiXforms Devotee


Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 1022
Location: Espoo, Finland

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

heh.
I never asked about KFD!! Very Happy

I think KFD is separate product and it should have always had it's own installer.

anyways, kixforms is a standalone product as well and documentation is part of this product.
simply installing kixforms and the documentation as default would be the correct course to take, imho.

ofcourse, /A or similar switch could be applied to only install the dll.
that said, my initial question applies.
what's the logic of stripping the chm off?
simply saying that some ppl want to deploy the msi without it is a really poor argument.

_________________
Hammer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Sealeopard
KiXforms Aficionado
KiXforms Aficionado


Joined: 05 Mar 2003
Posts: 436
Location: Boston, MA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it is a valid arguement. Not every sysadmin has the skills/software to create a MSI file for correct KiXforms .NET Deployment. Thus, offering the DLL itself as an MSI for PPO deployment and the CHM Help file for developers separately makes sense. Teh developers will most liely have some kind of structure where to put the CHM, which will vary from developer to developer.

Also, how many people develop in KF.NET compared to (inadvertantly) use it as an end-user.

_________________
Jens

'There are two kinds of vessels, submarines and targets.'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
mercury
KiXforms Regular
KiXforms Regular


Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My $0.02... When I buy into something I always prefer to "opt-In".

Remember when the windows installer gave you a tickbox for every component? I miss those days... (Not Windows mind you Wink)

I also agree that an average End User has no requirement for the documentation and don't see the point of wasting bandwidth deploying it. If they want to code then they can download the SDK.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lonkero
KiXforms Devotee
KiXforms Devotee


Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 1022
Location: Espoo, Finland

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

again, those options are still valid.
you can opt to not install the chm.

what the heck, shawn can wrap the chm and the dll msi inside a kf msi.
but if the whole kixforms is wrenched into a form that sysadmins that don't know about stuff, could use it, I say hey hello.
if they don't know about making a MSI, they don't most likely have no idea how they would use one either.
come on.

thus, if you deploy kf as sysadmin msi, you need to place some notes in the parent package how to deploy that.
and as that parent package grows in size, it's again reasonable to make it a installer.

_________________
Hammer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
mercury
KiXforms Regular
KiXforms Regular


Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, from my perspective as a sysadmin who does know how to create an msi and deploy it (not that anyone is suggesting I can't Smile)...

What would I create to use on my network so I could deploy a graphical logon script?

.. An msi to deploy via group policy - computer start-up script, which installs and registers the KiXforms.Net dll.
*Does the end user require access to the chm? : No
*Do I want curious EndUsers to discover and read the chm: Not really
*Does the script require access to the chm? : No
*Is the chm required to determine the dll version: No
*Is the extra bandwidth a concern for this redundant file when >100's of machines are involved? : Probably for me

I don’t think it’s an argument about relevant sysadmin skill sets but rather what is the most likely implementation/s? Why should I have to specify an obfuscated /nochm, -nchm, ect switch if that will be the configuration in almost every case? A knowledgeable admin can roll their own in those cases or set it up on a central resource.
Or you could chose to have an opt-in: i.e. -chm

So that's my bias towards the new packaging.

Now as a (newbie) developer:

*Do I want an ‘install everything’ sdk? : Yes, err actually…

One problem with including everything is keeping it in all in sync. I would rather not have to wait for a maintenance release of kf.net if it was pending an update of kfd. That has not happened afaik but what did happen is you download and re-install the same kfd version every time. Not a big deal but less than elegant. That is now a non-issue considering everyone seems to agree that the designer and kf.Net should be distinct anyway. The chm of course will always be linked to the current release. Does this then have to be in the msi? Unless you are deploying to multiple developers an installer would be better. That way you can have some say about where things go (chm, samples, etc.), and that can include stuff like the EndUser msi/s. Then you are back to the administration overhead of keeping the components in sync.

What I would like in an ideal world where time and money is no object…

A bootstrap installer that downloads and installs the latest version of everything for the developer and an included ‘updater’ to handle maintenance releases. However you shake it would involve a bit of initial time investment for Shawn and co and would be up to all of us whether there’s a real benefit considering it’s such a small package.

So to wrap up this rambling discourse I would suggest that the new arrangement of a sysadmin msi zipped up with the current chm is plenty flexible for my needs.

Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sealeopard
KiXforms Aficionado
KiXforms Aficionado


Joined: 05 Mar 2003
Posts: 436
Location: Boston, MA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joel:

Write a KiXtart script that generates both a DLL MSI and a "SDK" MSI that does contain the CHM. This way, Shawn, can auto-generate the appropriate file.

_________________
Jens

'There are two kinds of vessels, submarines and targets.'


Last edited by Sealeopard on Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Lonkero
KiXforms Devotee
KiXforms Devotee


Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 1022
Location: Espoo, Finland

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kix script?
lol.
seriously, there is no need for scripting...
he just sets some project options and voila.

_________________
Hammer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Lonkero
KiXforms Devotee
KiXforms Devotee


Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 1022
Location: Espoo, Finland

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

did some checking of the VS setup projects and outcome is that the current MSI is neither a admin MSI nor a end user MSI.

admin MSI for the dll, like the current one tries to be, does not ask any question.
end user MSI asks all the possible stuff.

so, to make it "proper" shawn would need to add another setup project for the dll and tlb files alone.
then, the installer for kixforms .net would include the "sdk" and that simple output msi from the first setup project.

_________________
Hammer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Shawn
KiXforms Developer
KiXforms Developer


Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1983
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The current msi can run totally silent like:

> kixforms.msi /qn

But I agree with you, should prolly quiet down the default installation even more - right now, the only two things in the MSI are the dll and tlb.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    KiXforms Forum Index -> KiXforms.NET Discussion All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group