You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Upayavira <uv...@upaya.co.uk> on 2005/04/14 11:15:19 UTC
Do we want a GUI installer?
In the work I've been doing with Snapbridge recently, I came across a
rather neat GUI installer, that basically provides a front end to Ant.
To demonstrate what we _could_ do, if we wanted to, I've knocked up an
example of how it might work. You can download it from here:
http://www.odoko.co.uk/installer.zip
Just unzip this in the root of your 2.1.X checkout, and run either
gui.sh or gui.cmd.
Some notes about this installer:
1) It won't actually run Ant yet. It isn't likely to be much to make it
do it, but I haven't given it the time yet.
2) In its current state, it is GPL licenced. The author has said he's
happy to change licence
3) It includes GPL libraries. I'd need to see if the author is prepared
to remove these from it
4) The block selection is pretty laborious now. I would extend the
installer app so that we can have a single selection box, where we
tick/untick each block, and scroll down.
5) I haven't tested the gui.cmd script, but it should work, as the
settings are the same as the Unix script.
The installer home is at antinstaller.sourceforge.net.
Thoughts?
Regards, Upayavira
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Upayavira wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
<snip/>
>> Yes, an installer, or more specifically a "new project wizard", is
>> one the goals of Lepido. However, I may seem overkill for a newcomer
>> that just wants to try out Cocoon to add another huge download to the
>> alreay large Cocoon distro.
>>
>> So this effort is welcome. The licence problem seems to be a blocker
>> though, since a graphical installer is supposed to make people's life
>> easier, and having to download the installer libraries separately is
>> definitely not easy!
>
>
> The author has since identified that the LGPL licenced jars are either
> his own (and can be relicensed) or inessential. So there doesn't seem
> to be a problem, which is good. (I did find some ant tasks (Roxes) for
> creating windows shortcuts,etc, which are cool, but they are GPL :-( )
>
> The question is, how deeply would we want to integrate this installer
> into our release processes, etc. E.g. whenever someone adds a new
> block, they'll need to rebuild the installer config to take it into
> account (an XSLT on gump.xml), and all documentation would need to be
> rewritten to take it into account. Also, a little blurb put into the
> gump.xml file so that the installer can say "This block does XYZ".
As long as the necessary information exists in gump.xml (and yes, some
descriptive text would be useful) generating the installer file can be
part of the release process. It can even be actually part of the
installer launch process.
> Anyway, I'll take this a little further - first I'll get the code
> relicensed so I can do a better demo, then I'll work out how to do the
> gump XSLT, and then I'll demo it.
Great!
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@upaya.co.uk>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Jorg Heymans wrote:
>
>>
>> Upayavira wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I can see this being useful for first time cocooners.
>>>>
>>>> What if the cocoon build switches to maven (as rumoured a few times
>>>> already)? Can the tool be extended to handle this? Will you need
>>>> seperate logic to handle the 2.2 block configuration?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If it can be done from Ant, it can be done with this tool. All it
>>> does is collects properties and delivers them to Ant.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Overall, IMO the potential effort of maintaining such a tool isn't
>>>> worth the benefit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe. Which is why I was asking!
>>>
>>> The effort to maintain for 2.1 is pretty minimal - it would just be a
>>> single XSLT on gump.xml and a few jars in the repo. For 2.2, well,
>>> we'll need to see what that is before we can decide!
>>
>>
>>
>> Well if it's no effort i don't see why it couldn't be added to the
>> next release as an experiment (pending license issues ofcourse). As
>> long as you make sure that the users know it's just a toy-experiment
>> and nothing more there should be no harm.
>>
>>
>> Actually, will/should Lepido provide anything like this? Any
>> Lepido'ers care to comment?
>
>
>
> Sorry for the late answer. The list is very busy lately and me too ;-)
>
> Yes, an installer, or more specifically a "new project wizard", is one
> the goals of Lepido. However, I may seem overkill for a newcomer that
> just wants to try out Cocoon to add another huge download to the alreay
> large Cocoon distro.
>
> So this effort is welcome. The licence problem seems to be a blocker
> though, since a graphical installer is supposed to make people's life
> easier, and having to download the installer libraries separately is
> definitely not easy!
The author has since identified that the LGPL licenced jars are either
his own (and can be relicensed) or inessential. So there doesn't seem to
be a problem, which is good. (I did find some ant tasks (Roxes) for
creating windows shortcuts,etc, which are cool, but they are GPL :-( )
The question is, how deeply would we want to integrate this installer
into our release processes, etc. E.g. whenever someone adds a new block,
they'll need to rebuild the installer config to take it into account (an
XSLT on gump.xml), and all documentation would need to be rewritten to
take it into account. Also, a little blurb put into the gump.xml file so
that the installer can say "This block does XYZ".
Anyway, I'll take this a little further - first I'll get the code
relicensed so I can do a better demo, then I'll work out how to do the
gump XSLT, and then I'll demo it.
Regards, Upayavira
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Jorg Heymans wrote:
>
> Upayavira wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I can see this being useful for first time cocooners.
>>>
>>> What if the cocoon build switches to maven (as rumoured a few times
>>> already)? Can the tool be extended to handle this? Will you need
>>> seperate logic to handle the 2.2 block configuration?
>>
>>
>>
>> If it can be done from Ant, it can be done with this tool. All it
>> does is collects properties and delivers them to Ant.
>
>
>>> Overall, IMO the potential effort of maintaining such a tool isn't
>>> worth the benefit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe. Which is why I was asking!
>>
>> The effort to maintain for 2.1 is pretty minimal - it would just be a
>> single XSLT on gump.xml and a few jars in the repo. For 2.2, well,
>> we'll need to see what that is before we can decide!
>
>
> Well if it's no effort i don't see why it couldn't be added to the
> next release as an experiment (pending license issues ofcourse). As
> long as you make sure that the users know it's just a toy-experiment
> and nothing more there should be no harm.
>
>
> Actually, will/should Lepido provide anything like this? Any
> Lepido'ers care to comment?
Sorry for the late answer. The list is very busy lately and me too ;-)
Yes, an installer, or more specifically a "new project wizard", is one
the goals of Lepido. However, I may seem overkill for a newcomer that
just wants to try out Cocoon to add another huge download to the alreay
large Cocoon distro.
So this effort is welcome. The licence problem seems to be a blocker
though, since a graphical installer is supposed to make people's life
easier, and having to download the installer libraries separately is
definitely not easy!
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Jorg Heymans <jh...@domek.be>.
Upayavira wrote:
>>
>> I can see this being useful for first time cocooners.
>>
>> What if the cocoon build switches to maven (as rumoured a few times
>> already)? Can the tool be extended to handle this? Will you need
>> seperate logic to handle the 2.2 block configuration?
>
>
> If it can be done from Ant, it can be done with this tool. All it does
> is collects properties and delivers them to Ant.
>> Overall, IMO the potential effort of maintaining such a tool isn't
>> worth the benefit.
>
>
> Maybe. Which is why I was asking!
>
> The effort to maintain for 2.1 is pretty minimal - it would just be a
> single XSLT on gump.xml and a few jars in the repo. For 2.2, well, we'll
> need to see what that is before we can decide!
Well if it's no effort i don't see why it couldn't be added to the next
release as an experiment (pending license issues ofcourse). As long as
you make sure that the users know it's just a toy-experiment and nothing
more there should be no harm.
Actually, will/should Lepido provide anything like this? Any Lepido'ers
care to comment?
Jorg
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@upaya.co.uk>.
Jorg Heymans wrote:
>
> Upayavira wrote:
>
>>
>> 1) It won't actually run Ant yet. It isn't likely to be much to make
>> it do it, but I haven't given it the time yet.
>> 2) In its current state, it is GPL licenced. The author has said he's
>> happy to change licence
>> 3) It includes GPL libraries. I'd need to see if the author is
>> prepared to remove these from it
>> 4) The block selection is pretty laborious now. I would extend the
>> installer app so that we can have a single selection box, where we
>> tick/untick each block, and scroll down.
>> 5) I haven't tested the gui.cmd script, but it should work, as the
>> settings are the same as the Unix script.
>>
> (gui.cmd works)
>
> I take it that antinstall-config.xml is (will be) autogenerated from the
> blocks configuration files?
This time round it was generated from the blocks.properties with a Perl
script. In future it would come from an XSLT on the gump.xml file. Yes.
>> Thoughts?
>
> I can see this being useful for first time cocooners.
>
> What if the cocoon build switches to maven (as rumoured a few times
> already)? Can the tool be extended to handle this? Will you need
> seperate logic to handle the 2.2 block configuration?
If it can be done from Ant, it can be done with this tool. All it does
is collects properties and delivers them to Ant.
> Overall, IMO the potential effort of maintaining such a tool isn't worth
> the benefit.
Maybe. Which is why I was asking!
The effort to maintain for 2.1 is pretty minimal - it would just be a
single XSLT on gump.xml and a few jars in the repo. For 2.2, well, we'll
need to see what that is before we can decide!
Regards, Upayavira
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Jorg Heymans <jh...@domek.be>.
Upayavira wrote:
>
> 1) It won't actually run Ant yet. It isn't likely to be much to make it
> do it, but I haven't given it the time yet.
> 2) In its current state, it is GPL licenced. The author has said he's
> happy to change licence
> 3) It includes GPL libraries. I'd need to see if the author is prepared
> to remove these from it
> 4) The block selection is pretty laborious now. I would extend the
> installer app so that we can have a single selection box, where we
> tick/untick each block, and scroll down.
> 5) I haven't tested the gui.cmd script, but it should work, as the
> settings are the same as the Unix script.
>
(gui.cmd works)
I take it that antinstall-config.xml is (will be) autogenerated from the
blocks configuration files?
> Thoughts?
I can see this being useful for first time cocooners.
What if the cocoon build switches to maven (as rumoured a few times
already)? Can the tool be extended to handle this? Will you need
seperate logic to handle the 2.2 block configuration?
Overall, IMO the potential effort of maintaining such a tool isn't worth
the benefit.
Regards,
Jorg
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Andrew Savory <an...@luminas.co.uk>.
Hi,
On 14 Apr 2005, at 19:21, Upayavira wrote:
> But it seems that people aren't that keen anyway. And I'm not really
> interested in maintaining this elsewhere.
Yeah, not much point maintaining it elsewhere. Something that's
supposed to make it easier to use shouldn't be difficult to get hold
of.
> So, doesn't seem to be a go-er.
I dunno, I'd like to see it in the sandbox at least. Whilst I agree
Cocoon is no "point and click" tool, I really don't see why we
shouldn't provide things that make it easier for those that just want
to get on and work. Now a lot of us use Macs, we're allowed to condone
GUIs, aren't we? :-)
Andrew.
--
Andrew Savory, Managing Director, Luminas Limited
Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658 Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135
Web: http://www.luminas.co.uk/
Orixo alliance: http://www.orixo.com/
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@upaya.co.uk>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> On Jue, 14 de Abril de 2005, 10:20, Upayavira dijo:
>
>>Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>
>>>Le 14 avr. 05, à 11:15, Upayavira a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>...In the work I've been doing with Snapbridge recently, I came across
>>>>a rather neat GUI installer, that basically provides a front end to
>>>>Ant...
>>>
>>>
>>>I remember a discussion a while ago about building a WebStart-based
>>>installer.
>>>
>>>People were strongly against it, the point being that it's better for
>>>people to fail early rather than erroneously believe that Cocoon is a
>>>point-and-click tool
>>>
>>>I think the need to manually edit some config files remains a good way
>>>of showing people what kind of skillset and mindset is needed to use
>>>Cocoon today - I wouldn't bother about GUI config tools unless they're
>>>integrated in a cohesive IDE.
>>
>>No probs. I'll just keep this tool in my personal toolbox then.
>
>
> What about an sourceforge project?
>
> The "only" problem I see here are the (L)GPL-ed libs used. AFAIK an SF
> project is better than a personal toolbox. ;-)
>
> People will use it and try it if this is avaliable. We we gladly can add a
> link in cocoon website.
>
> WDYT?
The installer itself is on Sourceforge. My installer is just a single
config file for that. If I were to commit this to Cocoon, I'd talk to
the developer to get licenses changed.
But it seems that people aren't that keen anyway. And I'm not really
interested in maintaining this elsewhere.
So, doesn't seem to be a go-er.
Regards, Upayavira
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Jue, 14 de Abril de 2005, 10:20, Upayavira dijo:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> Le 14 avr. 05, à 11:15, Upayavira a écrit :
>>
>>> ...In the work I've been doing with Snapbridge recently, I came across
>>> a rather neat GUI installer, that basically provides a front end to
>>> Ant...
>>
>>
>> I remember a discussion a while ago about building a WebStart-based
>> installer.
>>
>> People were strongly against it, the point being that it's better for
>> people to fail early rather than erroneously believe that Cocoon is a
>> point-and-click tool
>>
>> I think the need to manually edit some config files remains a good way
>> of showing people what kind of skillset and mindset is needed to use
>> Cocoon today - I wouldn't bother about GUI config tools unless they're
>> integrated in a cohesive IDE.
>
> No probs. I'll just keep this tool in my personal toolbox then.
What about an sourceforge project?
The "only" problem I see here are the (L)GPL-ed libs used. AFAIK an SF
project is better than a personal toolbox. ;-)
People will use it and try it if this is avaliable. We we gladly can add a
link in cocoon website.
WDYT?
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@upaya.co.uk>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Le 14 avr. 05, à 11:15, Upayavira a écrit :
>
>> ...In the work I've been doing with Snapbridge recently, I came across
>> a rather neat GUI installer, that basically provides a front end to
>> Ant...
>
>
> I remember a discussion a while ago about building a WebStart-based
> installer.
>
> People were strongly against it, the point being that it's better for
> people to fail early rather than erroneously believe that Cocoon is a
> point-and-click tool
>
> I think the need to manually edit some config files remains a good way
> of showing people what kind of skillset and mindset is needed to use
> Cocoon today - I wouldn't bother about GUI config tools unless they're
> integrated in a cohesive IDE.
No probs. I'll just keep this tool in my personal toolbox then.
Regards, Upayavira
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le 14 avr. 05, à 11:15, Upayavira a écrit :
> ...In the work I've been doing with Snapbridge recently, I came across
> a rather neat GUI installer, that basically provides a front end to
> Ant...
I remember a discussion a while ago about building a WebStart-based
installer.
People were strongly against it, the point being that it's better for
people to fail early rather than erroneously believe that Cocoon is a
point-and-click tool
I think the need to manually edit some config files remains a good way
of showing people what kind of skillset and mindset is needed to use
Cocoon today - I wouldn't bother about GUI config tools unless they're
integrated in a cohesive IDE.
-Bertrand
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> On 9/20/05, Jean-Baptiste Quenot <jb...@anyware-tech.com> wrote:
>
>>* Gianugo Rabellino:
>>
>>
>>>I think so, Cocoon 2.1 is here to stay for a while. FWIW, a
>>>colleague of mine (Daniele Madama) wrote a small GUI to manage
>>>blocks selection (think make xconfig for the linux kernel). If
>>>you deem it useful, my take is Daniele would be glad to
>>>contribute it.
>>
>>On FreeBSD, there is a Cocoon installer that has such a GUI. See
>>attached screenshot. This is based on a BSD Makefile.
>
>
> If I ever needed another reason to praise the FreeBSD guys, here it
> is... however, I fear that tool is less than portable, given it
> requires make and ncurses/dialog/whatever. My take is that a minimal
> Swing app able to deal with dependencies might be a good step forward
> anyway.
Well, here is where the Ant installer [1] would suit you. It's config
file could be generated with a single XSLT from gump.xml (I did have a
version of it working). IIRC it would add around 900K to our download.
Only downside: http://antinstaller.sourceforge.net/roadmap.html says
"Support for JDK1.3". I don't know how hard it would be to add it,
although I guess I could have a go.
Upayavira
[1] http://antinstaller.sourceforge.net/
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@gmail.com>.
On 9/20/05, Jean-Baptiste Quenot <jb...@anyware-tech.com> wrote:
> * Gianugo Rabellino:
>
> > I think so, Cocoon 2.1 is here to stay for a while. FWIW, a
> > colleague of mine (Daniele Madama) wrote a small GUI to manage
> > blocks selection (think make xconfig for the linux kernel). If
> > you deem it useful, my take is Daniele would be glad to
> > contribute it.
>
> On FreeBSD, there is a Cocoon installer that has such a GUI. See
> attached screenshot. This is based on a BSD Makefile.
If I ever needed another reason to praise the FreeBSD guys, here it
is... however, I fear that tool is less than portable, given it
requires make and ncurses/dialog/whatever. My take is that a minimal
Swing app able to deal with dependencies might be a good step forward
anyway.
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance: http://www.orixo.com
(blogging at http://www.rabellino.it/blog/)
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@gmail.com>.
On 9/22/05, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> > On 9/22/05, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 9/22/05, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>Now, pushing this a little further - a pane to enter details of a single
> >>mount that can be added automatically into the root sitemap - or to
> >>create a mounttable file. That way, you run this app, select your
> >>blocks, tell it where your own site is, click 'configure', click 'run'
> >>and you're away.
> >>
> >>Then, you realise you need an extra block, you click 'stop', you click
> >>to select your block, you click start, it says "I need to rebuild, hang
> >>on", and it rebuilds. Then it starts the webapp, with your app mounted
> >>already, and we're all really happy :-)
> >
> >
> > Hmmm... you're the guy who presented the SVNClassLoader at ApacheCon,
> > right? Well, it shows. :-))
>
> Oh, infamy already? ;-(
Naaaah, sound respect to a bright mind: we need dreamers. :-)
> > Anyway, yeah, that sounds great indeed, and definitely no rocket
> > science. My take would be grabbing the current source code, commit it
> > and start hacking on it. How about it?
>
> Sounds great. Although do I detect some suggestion that I might be doing
> some of that coding? :-) Really, before we commit it, we need some buy
> in from a number of people who are prepared to develop it/keep an eye
> upon it.
Well, I for one, would be glad to back this effort and provide
oversight as well as some code (well, not that I've been doing much
coding in Cocoonland lately, but I have a few things simmering on my
hard drive...including a Jetty stop/start panel. I just wish I had
48hrs days). In any case, while I have great expectations for 2.2, I
also think that increasing the user experience even for the time being
could be a good thing, and this small tool might help people in their
first impact with Cocoon.
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance: http://www.orixo.com
(blogging at http://www.rabellino.it/blog/)
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> On 9/22/05, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/22/05, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Now, pushing this a little further - a pane to enter details of a single
>>mount that can be added automatically into the root sitemap - or to
>>create a mounttable file. That way, you run this app, select your
>>blocks, tell it where your own site is, click 'configure', click 'run'
>>and you're away.
>>
>>Then, you realise you need an extra block, you click 'stop', you click
>>to select your block, you click start, it says "I need to rebuild, hang
>>on", and it rebuilds. Then it starts the webapp, with your app mounted
>>already, and we're all really happy :-)
>
>
> Hmmm... you're the guy who presented the SVNClassLoader at ApacheCon,
> right? Well, it shows. :-))
Oh, infamy already? ;-(
> Anyway, yeah, that sounds great indeed, and definitely no rocket
> science. My take would be grabbing the current source code, commit it
> and start hacking on it. How about it?
Sounds great. Although do I detect some suggestion that I might be doing
some of that coding? :-) Really, before we commit it, we need some buy
in from a number of people who are prepared to develop it/keep an eye
upon it. For myself, I'm starting to take using 2.2 more seriously, and
expect my efforts to go there.
Regards, Upayavira
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@gmail.com>.
On 9/22/05, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> > On 9/22/05, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> Now, pushing this a little further - a pane to enter details of a single
> mount that can be added automatically into the root sitemap - or to
> create a mounttable file. That way, you run this app, select your
> blocks, tell it where your own site is, click 'configure', click 'run'
> and you're away.
>
> Then, you realise you need an extra block, you click 'stop', you click
> to select your block, you click start, it says "I need to rebuild, hang
> on", and it rebuilds. Then it starts the webapp, with your app mounted
> already, and we're all really happy :-)
Hmmm... you're the guy who presented the SVNClassLoader at ApacheCon,
right? Well, it shows. :-))
Anyway, yeah, that sounds great indeed, and definitely no rocket
science. My take would be grabbing the current source code, commit it
and start hacking on it. How about it?
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance: http://www.orixo.com
(blogging at http://www.rabellino.it/blog/)
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Daniele Madama <d....@pronetics.it>.
> On 9/22/05, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>> Daniele Madama wrote:
>> Idea is simple, but works. I like the fact that it respects the
>> dependency information. That will ease people's lives a lot. My Ant
>> based installer didn't do that.
>>
>> Here's a few thoughts:
>>
>> 1. Could you show the dependency information in the right hand pane?
>> It
>> isn't always clear as to why a block's tick is grayed out.
>> 2. Could you add a page/tab for the basic options in build.properties?
>> 3. Could you add a pane that actually invokes Ant? If you could do
>> that, and added a 'welcome' pane, you'd have written a full
>> installer, which would be excellent. All it would need to do is set
>> stdout to an output stream that gets written to a list box or text
>> box, and has a cancel button.
>> 4. Could you make it use a more modern UI style?
>
> I'll add #5 then: adding a Jetty control pane to start/stop the webapp.
Yeah! And launch the rocket too. :D
Seriously, with this feature it became a complete installer.
I will start the coding of points 2 and 3, and then add this feature ;)
I'm very happy that this little application like to the community (2
people for this time :D)
Daniele
>
> --
> Gianugo Rabellino
> Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
> Orixo, the XML business alliance: http://www.orixo.com
> (blogging at http://www.rabellino.it/blog/)
>
--
The box said "Requires Windows 95/98/Me/Nt/2k/XP or better" .... so I
installed Linux !
-o=|=o-
Daniele Madama
Pro-netics s.r.l.
Via Elio Lampridio Cerva 127/c
Roma
Tel. 0651530849
http://www.pronetics.it
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> On 9/22/05, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Daniele Madama wrote:
>>Idea is simple, but works. I like the fact that it respects the
>>dependency information. That will ease people's lives a lot. My Ant
>>based installer didn't do that.
>>
>>Here's a few thoughts:
>>
>> 1. Could you show the dependency information in the right hand pane? It
>> isn't always clear as to why a block's tick is grayed out.
>> 2. Could you add a page/tab for the basic options in build.properties?
>> 3. Could you add a pane that actually invokes Ant? If you could do
>> that, and added a 'welcome' pane, you'd have written a full
>> installer, which would be excellent. All it would need to do is set
>> stdout to an output stream that gets written to a list box or text
>> box, and has a cancel button.
>> 4. Could you make it use a more modern UI style?
>
>
> I'll add #5 then: adding a Jetty control pane to start/stop the webapp.
That would be great.
Now, pushing this a little further - a pane to enter details of a single
mount that can be added automatically into the root sitemap - or to
create a mounttable file. That way, you run this app, select your
blocks, tell it where your own site is, click 'configure', click 'run'
and you're away.
Then, you realise you need an extra block, you click 'stop', you click
to select your block, you click start, it says "I need to rebuild, hang
on", and it rebuilds. Then it starts the webapp, with your app mounted
already, and we're all really happy :-)
WDYT?
Upayavira
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@gmail.com>.
On 9/22/05, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> Daniele Madama wrote:
> Idea is simple, but works. I like the fact that it respects the
> dependency information. That will ease people's lives a lot. My Ant
> based installer didn't do that.
>
> Here's a few thoughts:
>
> 1. Could you show the dependency information in the right hand pane? It
> isn't always clear as to why a block's tick is grayed out.
> 2. Could you add a page/tab for the basic options in build.properties?
> 3. Could you add a pane that actually invokes Ant? If you could do
> that, and added a 'welcome' pane, you'd have written a full
> installer, which would be excellent. All it would need to do is set
> stdout to an output stream that gets written to a list box or text
> box, and has a cancel button.
> 4. Could you make it use a more modern UI style?
I'll add #5 then: adding a Jetty control pane to start/stop the webapp.
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance: http://www.orixo.com
(blogging at http://www.rabellino.it/blog/)
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Daniele Madama <d....@pronetics.it>.
> Upayavira wrote:
> ...
>> Do we need to include a libary to achieve a better L&F? What is the
>> current way in the Java world? If we do, we need to make sure that we
>> choose one that is licenced in a compatible way to ASL. Thus, [2], which
>> is LGPL, is not compatible. I know JGoodies is BSD, but don't know if it
>> is any good.
>>
>> Any Java Swing gurus here who can give a little guidance?
>
> IMHO, if a GUI feels ugly, the first thing to do is to rethink the
> layout. From teh screenshots I saw here it's not qhat I would call a
> "standard" layout.
>
> Then set the look and feel of the native platform (please no metal), add
> icons, set the spacing between components, use SwingWorker to manage
> long-running actions... and thing will start to look nice.
>
> Other things can be done like setting rollover images for buttons, using
> more advanced components for some parts of the UI (swinglabs and
> l2fprod), using progress bars and statusbar for more info to the user,
> add a splash, tweak font, etc.
>
> Only *then* one can think of changing the l&f, but usually it's not
> needed.
Make sense, I'm new on UI programming and for me is more easy to change
l&f than think a good layout :D.
Thanks for the lesson ;)
>
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> - verba volant, scripta manent -
> (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--
The box said "Requires Windows 95/98/Me/Nt/2k/XP or better" .... so I
installed Linux !
-o=|=o-
Daniele Madama
Pro-netics s.r.l.
Via Elio Lampridio Cerva 127/c
Roma
Tel. 0651530849
http://www.pronetics.it
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Upayavira wrote:
...
> Do we need to include a libary to achieve a better L&F? What is the
> current way in the Java world? If we do, we need to make sure that we
> choose one that is licenced in a compatible way to ASL. Thus, [2], which
> is LGPL, is not compatible. I know JGoodies is BSD, but don't know if it
> is any good.
>
> Any Java Swing gurus here who can give a little guidance?
IMHO, if a GUI feels ugly, the first thing to do is to rethink the
layout. From teh screenshots I saw here it's not qhat I would call a
"standard" layout.
Then set the look and feel of the native platform (please no metal), add
icons, set the spacing between components, use SwingWorker to manage
long-running actions... and thing will start to look nice.
Other things can be done like setting rollover images for buttons, using
more advanced components for some parts of the UI (swinglabs and
l2fprod), using progress bars and statusbar for more info to the user,
add a splash, tweak font, etc.
Only *then* one can think of changing the l&f, but usually it's not needed.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Daniele Madama wrote:
>>The application has the default Java swing look, which isn't very
>>exciting. So, anything that looks a little prettier...
>>
>>Windows look and feel, Metal, GTK+, whatever, I'm no expert, I just know
>>that Java apps can look prettier. And it is important that it look
>>reasonably pretty if this is going to be someone's first sight of Cocoon.
>>
>>Regards, Upayavira
>>
>
>
> I'm surfing the web looking for more look&feel layout, I found this site
> [1] with lot of free l&f. I'd like many liquid [2], but there are many
> themes very nice. Can we go ahead for this way? WDYT?
>
> [1] http://javootoo.l2fprod.com/
> [2] https://liquidlnf.dev.java.net/
I speak as someone who's Swing experience doesn't go beyond learning
exercises.
Do we need to include a libary to achieve a better L&F? What is the
current way in the Java world? If we do, we need to make sure that we
choose one that is licenced in a compatible way to ASL. Thus, [2], which
is LGPL, is not compatible. I know JGoodies is BSD, but don't know if it
is any good.
Any Java Swing gurus here who can give a little guidance?
Regards, Upayavira
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Daniele Madama <d....@pro-netics.com>.
>
> The application has the default Java swing look, which isn't very
> exciting. So, anything that looks a little prettier...
>
> Windows look and feel, Metal, GTK+, whatever, I'm no expert, I just know
> that Java apps can look prettier. And it is important that it look
> reasonably pretty if this is going to be someone's first sight of Cocoon.
>
> Regards, Upayavira
>
I'm surfing the web looking for more look&feel layout, I found this site
[1] with lot of free l&f. I'd like many liquid [2], but there are many
themes very nice. Can we go ahead for this way? WDYT?
[1] http://javootoo.l2fprod.com/
[2] https://liquidlnf.dev.java.net/
--
The box said "Requires Windows 95/98/Me/Nt/2k/XP or better" .... so I
installed Linux !
-o=|=o-
Daniele Madama
Pro-netics s.r.l.
Via Elio Lampridio Cerva 127/c
Roma
Tel. 0651530849
http://www.pronetics.it
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Ugo Cei wrote:
> Il giorno 22/set/05, alle 23:49, Upayavira ha scritto:
>
>> The application has the default Java swing look, which isn't very
>> exciting. So, anything that looks a little prettier...
>
>
> Oh, well, on my Mac it has the Aqua look, so it looks rather pretty, but
> I agree that it could be much prettier. Actually, before I helped
> Daniele tweak the UI just a little, it looked *really* ugly ;-).
:-)
> If I remember correctly, selecting the default platform L&F is quite
> simple and this would give Windows users a more familiar UI, so I'm +1
> on that.
Great.
> As for Linux/Unix people, they are accustomed to ugly,
> inconsistent GUIs so they shouldn't care much ;-)
Dah. Not on Ubuntu. On Ubuntu, everything is pretty!
> Besides I think GTK is
> the default platform L&F on Linux starting with JDK 1.5. Personally, I
> prefer Metal, but that's just me.
I'm really not fussed what it is, just want it to be prettier!
I've attached a screenshot, FYI.
Upayavira
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Ugo Cei <ug...@apache.org>.
Il giorno 22/set/05, alle 23:49, Upayavira ha scritto:
> The application has the default Java swing look, which isn't very
> exciting. So, anything that looks a little prettier...
Oh, well, on my Mac it has the Aqua look, so it looks rather pretty,
but I agree that it could be much prettier. Actually, before I helped
Daniele tweak the UI just a little, it looked *really* ugly ;-).
If I remember correctly, selecting the default platform L&F is quite
simple and this would give Windows users a more familiar UI, so I'm +1
on that. As for Linux/Unix people, they are accustomed to ugly,
inconsistent GUIs so they shouldn't care much ;-) Besides I think GTK
is the default platform L&F on Linux starting with JDK 1.5. Personally,
I prefer Metal, but that's just me.
Ugo
--
Ugo Cei
Tech Blog: http://agylen.com/
Open Source Zone: http://oszone.org/
Wine & Food Blog: http://www.divinocibo.it/
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Ugo Cei wrote:
> Il giorno 22/set/05, alle 21:32, Upayavira ha scritto:
>
>> 4. Could you make it use a more modern UI style?
>
>
> What do you mean by "modern"?
The application has the default Java swing look, which isn't very
exciting. So, anything that looks a little prettier...
Windows look and feel, Metal, GTK+, whatever, I'm no expert, I just know
that Java apps can look prettier. And it is important that it look
reasonably pretty if this is going to be someone's first sight of Cocoon.
Regards, Upayavira
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Ugo Cei <ug...@apache.org>.
Il giorno 22/set/05, alle 21:32, Upayavira ha scritto:
> 4. Could you make it use a more modern UI style?
What do you mean by "modern"?
Ugo
--
Ugo Cei
Tech Blog: http://agylen.com/
Open Source Zone: http://oszone.org/
Wine & Food Blog: http://www.divinocibo.it/
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Daniele Madama <d....@pronetics.it>.
>
> Idea is simple, but works. I like the fact that it respects the
> dependency information. That will ease people's lives a lot. My Ant
> based installer didn't do that.
>
> Here's a few thoughts:
>
> 1. Could you show the dependency information in the right hand pane? It
> isn't always clear as to why a block's tick is grayed out.
> 2. Could you add a page/tab for the basic options in build.properties?
> 3. Could you add a pane that actually invokes Ant? If you could do
> that, and added a 'welcome' pane, you'd have written a full
> installer, which would be excellent. All it would need to do is set
> stdout to an output stream that gets written to a list box or text
> box, and has a cancel button.
> 4. Could you make it use a more modern UI style?
Points 2 and 3 already are in my TODO list :D.
For point 4 I think that any people with a little of SWING experience
(isn't my case) could do a very well work. Any volunteer? :D
>
> I like the idea of what we have here. I'd be all for adding it to the
> Cocoon 2.1.X codebase.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Regards, Upayavira
>
> P.S. My (Unix) command to invoke it was:
>
> java -cp
> lib/endorsed/xalan-2.6.1-dev-20041008T0304.jar:lib/endorsed/xml-apis.jar:lib/endorsed/xercesImpl-2.7.1.jar:cbuilder-0.1-idea.jar
> org.apache.cocoon.builder.CocoonBuilder
>
> Windows would be: java -cp
> lib/endorsed/xalan-2.6.1-dev-20041008T0304.jar;lib/endorsed/xml-apis.jar;lib/endorsed/xercesImpl-2.7.1.jar;cbuilder-0.1-idea.jar
> org.apache.cocoon.builder.CocoonBuilder
>
--
The box said "Requires Windows 95/98/Me/Nt/2k/XP or better" .... so I
installed Linux !
-o=|=o-
Daniele Madama
Pro-netics s.r.l.
Via Elio Lampridio Cerva 127/c
Roma
Tel. 0651530849
http://www.pronetics.it
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Daniele Madama wrote:
>>Daniele Madama wrote:
>>
>>>>* Gianugo Rabellino:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think so, Cocoon 2.1 is here to stay for a while. FWIW, a
>>>>>colleague of mine (Daniele Madama) wrote a small GUI to manage
>>>>>blocks selection (think make xconfig for the linux kernel). If
>>>>>you deem it useful, my take is Daniele would be glad to
>>>>>contribute it.
>>>>
>>>>On FreeBSD, there is a Cocoon installer that has such a GUI. See
>>>>attached screenshot. This is based on a BSD Makefile.
>>>
>>>My installer is similar to this, but it is written in SWING. It has a
>>>selection of blocks (read and pre-selected from
>>>[local.]blocks.properties)
>>>with their description (read from gump.xml) and it will have a selection
>>>from principal build.properties (like samples, javadoc, and more).
>>>
>>>I hope to have time to finish some feature and donate it, if you want
>>>and
>>>if you think that it was useful. ;)
>>
>>Since the scope of the work required of the AntInstaller and yours isn't
>>that different, I'd be interested to see yours.
>
>
> Thanks for your interest, I really hope this small application might serve
> the needs of the cocoon community.
>
> If you think the application might suit your needs, I'll gladly post the
> source to bugzilla. To try it out:
>
> http://www.pronetics.it/transfer/cbuilder-0.1-idea.jar
>
> For execute:
> 1) put the jar in $COCOON_HOME
> 2) backup your local.blocks.properties ;)
> 3) java -jar cbuilder-0.1-idea.jar
>
> this work only on BRANCH_2_1_X version, if you have an older version,
> execute it with 'java -cp lib/endorsed/x*.jar
> org.apache.cocoon.builder.CocoonBuilder'.
>
> I'm waiting for your hints or opinion.
Idea is simple, but works. I like the fact that it respects the
dependency information. That will ease people's lives a lot. My Ant
based installer didn't do that.
Here's a few thoughts:
1. Could you show the dependency information in the right hand pane? It
isn't always clear as to why a block's tick is grayed out.
2. Could you add a page/tab for the basic options in build.properties?
3. Could you add a pane that actually invokes Ant? If you could do
that, and added a 'welcome' pane, you'd have written a full
installer, which would be excellent. All it would need to do is set
stdout to an output stream that gets written to a list box or text
box, and has a cancel button.
4. Could you make it use a more modern UI style?
I like the idea of what we have here. I'd be all for adding it to the
Cocoon 2.1.X codebase.
What do others think?
Regards, Upayavira
P.S. My (Unix) command to invoke it was:
java -cp
lib/endorsed/xalan-2.6.1-dev-20041008T0304.jar:lib/endorsed/xml-apis.jar:lib/endorsed/xercesImpl-2.7.1.jar:cbuilder-0.1-idea.jar
org.apache.cocoon.builder.CocoonBuilder
Windows would be: java -cp
lib/endorsed/xalan-2.6.1-dev-20041008T0304.jar;lib/endorsed/xml-apis.jar;lib/endorsed/xercesImpl-2.7.1.jar;cbuilder-0.1-idea.jar
org.apache.cocoon.builder.CocoonBuilder
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Daniele Madama <d....@pronetics.it>.
> Daniele Madama wrote:
>>>* Gianugo Rabellino:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think so, Cocoon 2.1 is here to stay for a while. FWIW, a
>>>>colleague of mine (Daniele Madama) wrote a small GUI to manage
>>>>blocks selection (think make xconfig for the linux kernel). If
>>>>you deem it useful, my take is Daniele would be glad to
>>>>contribute it.
>>>
>>>On FreeBSD, there is a Cocoon installer that has such a GUI. See
>>>attached screenshot. This is based on a BSD Makefile.
>>
>> My installer is similar to this, but it is written in SWING. It has a
>> selection of blocks (read and pre-selected from
>> [local.]blocks.properties)
>> with their description (read from gump.xml) and it will have a selection
>> from principal build.properties (like samples, javadoc, and more).
>>
>> I hope to have time to finish some feature and donate it, if you want
>> and
>> if you think that it was useful. ;)
>
> Since the scope of the work required of the AntInstaller and yours isn't
> that different, I'd be interested to see yours.
Thanks for your interest, I really hope this small application might serve
the needs of the cocoon community.
If you think the application might suit your needs, I'll gladly post the
source to bugzilla. To try it out:
http://www.pronetics.it/transfer/cbuilder-0.1-idea.jar
For execute:
1) put the jar in $COCOON_HOME
2) backup your local.blocks.properties ;)
3) java -jar cbuilder-0.1-idea.jar
this work only on BRANCH_2_1_X version, if you have an older version,
execute it with 'java -cp lib/endorsed/x*.jar
org.apache.cocoon.builder.CocoonBuilder'.
I'm waiting for your hints or opinion.
Regards
Daniele
>
> Interesting to see that you use the descriptions from gump.xml. I put
> those there when I was planning to do build this installer, for the very
> purpose you are using them for!
>
> Regards, Upayavira
>
--
The box said "Requires Windows 95/98/Me/Nt/2k/XP or better" .... so I
installed Linux !
-o=|=o-
Daniele Madama
Pro-netics s.r.l.
Via Elio Lampridio Cerva 127/c
Roma
Tel. 0651530849
http://www.pronetics.it
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Daniele Madama wrote:
>>* Gianugo Rabellino:
>>
>>
>>>I think so, Cocoon 2.1 is here to stay for a while. FWIW, a
>>>colleague of mine (Daniele Madama) wrote a small GUI to manage
>>>blocks selection (think make xconfig for the linux kernel). If
>>>you deem it useful, my take is Daniele would be glad to
>>>contribute it.
>>
>>On FreeBSD, there is a Cocoon installer that has such a GUI. See
>>attached screenshot. This is based on a BSD Makefile.
>
> My installer is similar to this, but it is written in SWING. It has a
> selection of blocks (read and pre-selected from [local.]blocks.properties)
> with their description (read from gump.xml) and it will have a selection
> from principal build.properties (like samples, javadoc, and more).
>
> I hope to have time to finish some feature and donate it, if you want and
> if you think that it was useful. ;)
Since the scope of the work required of the AntInstaller and yours isn't
that different, I'd be interested to see yours.
Interesting to see that you use the descriptions from gump.xml. I put
those there when I was planning to do build this installer, for the very
purpose you are using them for!
Regards, Upayavira
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Daniele Madama <d....@pronetics.it>.
> * Gianugo Rabellino:
>
>> I think so, Cocoon 2.1 is here to stay for a while. FWIW, a
>> colleague of mine (Daniele Madama) wrote a small GUI to manage
>> blocks selection (think make xconfig for the linux kernel). If
>> you deem it useful, my take is Daniele would be glad to
>> contribute it.
>
> On FreeBSD, there is a Cocoon installer that has such a GUI. See
> attached screenshot. This is based on a BSD Makefile.
My installer is similar to this, but it is written in SWING. It has a
selection of blocks (read and pre-selected from [local.]blocks.properties)
with their description (read from gump.xml) and it will have a selection
from principal build.properties (like samples, javadoc, and more).
I hope to have time to finish some feature and donate it, if you want and
if you think that it was useful. ;)
Daniele
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Quenot
> Systèmes d'Information
> ANYWARE TECHNOLOGIES
> Tel : +33 (0)5 61 00 52 90
> Fax : +33 (0)5 61 00 51 46
> http://www.anyware-tech.com/
>
--
The box said "Requires Windows 95/98/Me/Nt/2k/XP or better" .... so I
installed Linux !
-o=|=o-
Daniele Madama
Pro-netics s.r.l.
Via Elio Lampridio Cerva 127/c
Roma
Tel. 0651530849
http://www.pronetics.it
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Quenot <jb...@anyware-tech.com>.
* Gianugo Rabellino:
> I think so, Cocoon 2.1 is here to stay for a while. FWIW, a
> colleague of mine (Daniele Madama) wrote a small GUI to manage
> blocks selection (think make xconfig for the linux kernel). If
> you deem it useful, my take is Daniele would be glad to
> contribute it.
On FreeBSD, there is a Cocoon installer that has such a GUI. See
attached screenshot. This is based on a BSD Makefile.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
Systèmes d'Information
ANYWARE TECHNOLOGIES
Tel : +33 (0)5 61 00 52 90
Fax : +33 (0)5 61 00 51 46
http://www.anyware-tech.com/
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@gmail.com>.
On 9/20/05, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> If someone is still interested, I'll happily give pointers/ideas, maybe
> even find the time to revisit and implement it myself. However, things
> with OSGi/blocks are much clearer now than they were. Do we still need
> to improve the user experience of building 2.1? What do people think?
I think so, Cocoon 2.1 is here to stay for a while. FWIW, a colleague
of mine (Daniele Madama) wrote a small GUI to manage blocks selection
(think make xconfig for the linux kernel). If you deem it useful, my
take is Daniele would be glad to contribute it.
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance: http://www.orixo.com
(blogging at http://www.rabellino.it/blog/)
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Jorg Heymans wrote:
> Joerg Heinicke wrote:
>
>>On 14.04.2005 11:15, Upayavira wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In the work I've been doing with Snapbridge recently, I came across a
>>>rather neat GUI installer, that basically provides a front end to Ant.
>>
>>
>>Did anything result from this thread?
>>
>>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=111347027000005&r=1&w=4
>>
>
>
> I'ld say we put this off until the situation with m2 and osgi has
> stabilized. Heck, maybe our osgi implementation will provide a builtin
> solution like [1] , meaning we wouldn't have to do much if anything at
> all to have this.
I'd probably agree, now.
As background, I saw this installer that looked like it would make a
decent front end for the 2.1 build process. I looked into using it for
some of my own work. However, it turned out not to have the range of
functionality I needed (but would still have suited Cocoon well) - I had
to drop it and learn NSIS (which, whilst powerful, is ghastly in terms
of its scripting - scripting as if writing C, with pre-processing
instructions etc, gaahh) - hence I didn't find the time to complete what
I proposed for Cocoon.
If someone is still interested, I'll happily give pointers/ideas, maybe
even find the time to revisit and implement it myself. However, things
with OSGi/blocks are much clearer now than they were. Do we still need
to improve the user experience of building 2.1? What do people think?
Regards, Upayavira
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Jorg Heymans <jh...@domek.be>.
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> On 14.04.2005 11:15, Upayavira wrote:
>
>> In the work I've been doing with Snapbridge recently, I came across a
>> rather neat GUI installer, that basically provides a front end to Ant.
>
>
> Did anything result from this thread?
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=111347027000005&r=1&w=4
>
I'ld say we put this off until the situation with m2 and osgi has
stabilized. Heck, maybe our osgi implementation will provide a builtin
solution like [1] , meaning we wouldn't have to do much if anything at
all to have this.
Jorg
[1] http://www.knopflerfish.org/desktop.html
Re: Do we want a GUI installer?
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 14.04.2005 11:15, Upayavira wrote:
> In the work I've been doing with Snapbridge recently, I came across a
> rather neat GUI installer, that basically provides a front end to Ant.
Did anything result from this thread?
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=111347027000005&r=1&w=4
Jörg