You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> on 2014/10/10 02:21:50 UTC
Adding Flex Unit to installer
Hi,
I been looking at adding Flex Unit to the installer and it occurred to me that we may want to add it in two places.
1. As a stand alone product (ie shows in first list along with the various SDKS)
2. As an optional part of installing an SDK
1 makes sense if you have already installed the SDK., 2 make sense if you haven't have installed the SDK. You could of course just manually download and unzip it - but having everything accessible via the installer make sense to me.
The first requires a few changes to the installer as it currently assumes an ant script must be run, but to just download, check the MD5 and uncompress something no ant file is required as the installer does that for you. I've made but not fully tested the required installer changes for that.
The second requires it being added to the SDK install scripts. This is a little problematic in that the steps are part of each SDK release in the dist area. I'm assuming we can't we change the contents of those without VOTEing on a release.
Wouldn't it be better to separate these steps from the release area and store in the web site content like the other installer files? (eg /installer/<productname>/<version>/config.xml) so that when things change, like
- License terms or our understanding of those terms change
- Extra optional components are added
We don't have to re-release packages involved?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Adding Flex Unit to installer
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
>
> >>but then you are back to not being able to tweak things for the Linux
> >>folks.
> >
> >Perhaps have installer.xml check if it up to date and if not replace
> >itself? Given there's alternative way to install I don;t see it as a big
> >issue. Of course what Linux users really want to the SDK package up as a
> >Linux package.
> I don¹t know if a script can replace itself, but one variant on this
> theme, if we¹re not worried about older releases, is to change 4.14 so the
> build.xml has an install target that downloads the installer.xml and then
> runs it.
>
> Folks would then run ³ant install² instead of ³ant -f installer.xml². It
> is another download so it exposes us to another potential point of failure
> and lag for slow networks, but gives you the ability to tweak the install
> after releasing.
>
I think that would work. The ‘another download’ would be from Apache
servers, which, if they don’t work, would cause plenty of other problems ;-)
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Adding Flex Unit to installer
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
On 10/10/14 15:38, Alex Harui wrote:
> I don¹t know if a script can replace itself,
It'll work on Linux, but Windows will probably moan the file is in use.
Tom
Re: Adding Flex Unit to installer
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 10/10/14, 12:40 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>but then you are back to not being able to tweak things for the Linux
>>folks.
>
>Perhaps have installer.xml check if it up to date and if not replace
>itself? Given there's alternative way to install I don;t see it as a big
>issue. Of course what Linux users really want to the SDK package up as a
>Linux package.
I don¹t know if a script can replace itself, but one variant on this
theme, if we¹re not worried about older releases, is to change 4.14 so the
build.xml has an install target that downloads the installer.xml and then
runs it.
Folks would then run ³ant install² instead of ³ant -f installer.xml². It
is another download so it exposes us to another potential point of failure
and lag for slow networks, but gives you the ability to tweak the install
after releasing.
-Alex
Re: Adding Flex Unit to installer
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I¹m still confused. If you change the installer to offer FlexUnit as an
> optional step, how will we offer the same option to Linux users?
If it an optional step you will need an installer script right? Linux user can use that if they really want OR they can just download and unzip in the normal way.
> but then you are back to not being able to tweak things for the Linux folks.
Perhaps have installer.xml check if it up to date and if not replace itself? Given there's alternative way to install I don;t see it as a big issue. Of course what Linux users really want to the SDK package up as a Linux package.
Justin
Re: Adding Flex Unit to installer
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Given the market share of Linux and the generally more technically
proficient users of that platform (i.e. capable of, and used to installing
multiple dependencies separately from the command line), I don’t think we
should sacrifice improved functionality for the vast majority just to keep
feature parity for a small minority. We can always educate them on the
options in the README and on the wiki and website.
EdB
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Trying to get back to one thread...
>
> On 10/9/14, 11:43 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >Which would have minimal impact on them, Flex Unit doesn't (as far a sI
> >know) really have any install steps as such it just download, check md5,
> >and unpack. For the stand alone install is doesn't need an install
> >script, for the integrated into the SDK install it requires one. Linux
> >users are not least out and can still use ant if they want.
> I¹m still confused. If you change the installer to offer FlexUnit as an
> optional step, how will we offer the same option to Linux users?
>
> >>
> >>I think Justin is suggesting that we store more of the installer
> >>intelligence on the server.
>
> >Yes currently it spread out between 3 xml files, and given we depend
> >on things who location could change and gives us a more flexibility
> >in changing how previous versions are installed.
>
> Are the three files you are referencing sdk-installer-config-4.0.xml,
> apache-flex-sdk-installer-config.xml and installer.xml? The first two are
> already separated out. Installer.xml could be broken out, but a copy
> should probably be packaged in the zip/tar so that Linux users don¹t have
> to download two things in order to run their ant install, but then you are
> back to not being able to tweak things for the Linux folks.
>
> -Alex
>
>
>
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Adding Flex Unit to installer
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Trying to get back to one thread...
On 10/9/14, 11:43 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>Which would have minimal impact on them, Flex Unit doesn't (as far a sI
>know) really have any install steps as such it just download, check md5,
>and unpack. For the stand alone install is doesn't need an install
>script, for the integrated into the SDK install it requires one. Linux
>users are not least out and can still use ant if they want.
I¹m still confused. If you change the installer to offer FlexUnit as an
optional step, how will we offer the same option to Linux users?
>>
>>I think Justin is suggesting that we store more of the installer
>>intelligence on the server.
>Yes currently it spread out between 3 xml files, and given we depend
>on things who location could change and gives us a more flexibility
>in changing how previous versions are installed.
Are the three files you are referencing sdk-installer-config-4.0.xml,
apache-flex-sdk-installer-config.xml and installer.xml? The first two are
already separated out. Installer.xml could be broken out, but a copy
should probably be packaged in the zip/tar so that Linux users don¹t have
to download two things in order to run their ant install, but then you are
back to not being able to tweak things for the Linux folks.
-Alex
Re: Adding Flex Unit to installer
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Are you suggesting that we change the install experience for 4.13.0 and
> older releases?
Yes I can see users wanting to install Flex Unit (or Tour De Flex) as an optional install while installing the SDK.
> One advantage of having all of the steps in the ant script is that our Linux users (and anybody else who doesn¹t or can¹t run
> AIR) get a rough command-line equivalent.
Which would have minimal impact on them, Flex Unit doesn't (as far a sI know) really have any install steps as such it just download, check md5, and unpack. For the stand alone install is doesn't need an install script, for the integrated into the SDK install it requires one. Linux users are not least out and can still use ant if they want.
> I think what you want to do is just chain a few installs together as in
> ³Hey, you¹ve installed A, would you be interested in installing B² or do
> you envision something more tightly integrated?
More integrated as it would show up as an optional component in the installer for the SDK.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Adding Flex Unit to installer
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I think Justin is suggesting that we store more of the installer
> intelligence on the server.
Yes currently it spread out between 3 xml files, and given we depend on things who location could change and gives us a more flexibility in changing how previous versions are installed.
> Justin, do you see a copy of the installer scripts live on the server, ready for us to manipulate without a VOTE?
As long as the released software doesn't change no vote is required.
> they have all the choice they could want by running the build scripts.
Not all users use the command line, if they did we wouldn't have a need for the installer at all :-)
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Adding Flex Unit to installer
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
I think Justin is suggesting that we store more of the installer
intelligence on the server. Justin, do you see a copy of the installer
scripts live on the server, ready for us to manipulate without a VOTE? I
like that suggestion, it would separate the interests of the various part
even better (i.e. “product” vs. Installer).
I would suggest NOT making the process any harder for the user (“chain a
few installs”); the Installer is a wonderful tool and we should use it to
make the life of devs easier, not fall into the OS trap of “giving people
choice” - they have all the choice they could want by running the build
scripts.
EdB
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/9/14, 5:21 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@me.com> wrote:
> >The second requires it being added to the SDK install scripts. This is a
> >little problematic in that the steps are part of each SDK release in the
> >dist area. I'm assuming we can't we change the contents of those without
> >VOTEing on a release.
> >
> >Wouldn't it be better to separate these steps from the release area and
> >store in the web site content like the other installer files? (eg
> >/installer/<productname>/<version>/config.xml) so that when things
> >change, like
> >- License terms or our understanding of those terms change
> >- Extra optional components are added
> >
> >We don't have to re-release packages involved?
>
> Are you suggesting that we change the install experience for 4.13.0 and
> older releases? One advantage of having all of the steps in the ant
> script is that our Linux users (and anybody else who doesn¹t or can¹t run
> AIR) get a rough command-line equivalent.
>
> I think what you want to do is just chain a few installs together as in
> ³Hey, you¹ve installed A, would you be interested in installing B² or do
> you envision something more tightly integrated? Teaching the installer to
> chain might be useful, although again, what would we do for our Linux
> users?
>
> -Alex
>
>
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Adding Flex Unit to installer
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 10/9/14, 5:21 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@me.com> wrote:
>The second requires it being added to the SDK install scripts. This is a
>little problematic in that the steps are part of each SDK release in the
>dist area. I'm assuming we can't we change the contents of those without
>VOTEing on a release.
>
>Wouldn't it be better to separate these steps from the release area and
>store in the web site content like the other installer files? (eg
>/installer/<productname>/<version>/config.xml) so that when things
>change, like
>- License terms or our understanding of those terms change
>- Extra optional components are added
>
>We don't have to re-release packages involved?
Are you suggesting that we change the install experience for 4.13.0 and
older releases? One advantage of having all of the steps in the ant
script is that our Linux users (and anybody else who doesn¹t or can¹t run
AIR) get a rough command-line equivalent.
I think what you want to do is just chain a few installs together as in
³Hey, you¹ve installed A, would you be interested in installing B² or do
you envision something more tightly integrated? Teaching the installer to
chain might be useful, although again, what would we do for our Linux
users?
-Alex