tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-985159635193633235.post1892722630269141371..comments2024-03-25T00:30:02.127-07:00Comments on ISWIX: Good, Bad or just Different?Christopher Painterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12167478740431444267noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-985159635193633235.post-3693018090050706492008-01-22T06:24:00.000-08:002008-01-22T06:24:00.000-08:00I haven't rigerously tested it, but it seems t...I haven't rigerously tested it, but it seems the easiest solution would be to implement a caching custom action.<br><br>I wrote one that was pretty good (supported Compressed & Uncompressed images, worked on Vista, etc) and it seemed to work for my purposes.<br><br>Is there some reason that this avenue isn't further investigated?ShadowWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17170306422408594103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-985159635193633235.post-79815033638794460132008-01-23T09:08:00.000-08:002008-01-23T09:08:00.000-08:00Christopher,Have you read Robert Flaming's &qu...Christopher,<br>Have you read Robert Flaming's "Agility Trends in Packaged Software" white paper (http://blogs.msdn.com/windows_installer_team/archive/2007/08/20/updated-and-new-white-papers-now-on-windows-installer-4-5-beta-site.aspx) ? I find it goes a long way towards explaining the philosophy that underlies the move to chainers and external UI.<br><br>My personal opinion is that the concepts are sound, but their implementation by MS, or lack thereof ("We are grateful for the effort our partners extend to our mutual customers through our technology" - to answer your last question, I'm sure ISHNMET has been working on supporting this "new way" for some time now), feels unsatisfactory, as you point out. <br><br>I would love to hear your opinion on that paper. Your blog is one of my favorites covering setup, mainly for the lucidity.<br><br>Cheers,<br>--JonathanJonathan Perrethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05225413917140302974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-985159635193633235.post-88733136183633993192008-01-23T13:31:00.000-08:002008-01-23T13:31:00.000-08:00Yes, I'm aware of that white paper and the res...Yes, I'm aware of that white paper and the resulting MSI updates coming. I've also spoken with several tools vendors on the subject.<br><br>BTW, trivia question: Who know who invented the merge module specification that is soo busted?<br><br>Most of my thoughts were geared to the fake/empty MSI followed by a patch to major upgrade ( true install ) the application. As far as I know, that's not addressed by this white paper but if it is and I missed it, please feel free to chime in.<br><br>BTW when MSI first came out the bootstrapper was really only intended to deploy MSIEXEC. All the other package integration was intended to be performed by merge modules and concurrent installs. Of course we've now compltely acknowledged that the design is flat out busted from a servicing perspective.<br><br>Personally I don't think we should need a bootstrapper to host an external UI. There should be someway of loading a library into the MSI and when the client side process fires up it automatically uses it if present. Further I think there should be some way of storing all of these micropackages inside the MSI and chaining them all together without the help of a bootstrapper.<br><br>In otherwords, an MSI should still be an MSI and it should still support things like GPO and a standardized deployment experience ( /qn /qb public properties ectera ) without going way off the reservation by hiding contents inside an EXE and creating complex XML files to drive the configuration.<br><br>Hope that's lucid enough. I'm rarely accused of being that. :-) I usually come across much better while drinking coffee for several hours.Christopher Painterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12167478740431444267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-985159635193633235.post-57058067422286471312008-01-24T05:41:00.000-08:002008-01-24T05:41:00.000-08:00Thank you for the response. You're right that ...Thank you for the response. You're right that the whitepaper does not specifically condone the kind of hack, I mean clever workaround, that the latest .NET FX setup uses.<br><br>Again, I feel in complete agreement with "an MSI should still be an MSI".<br><br>Finally, if you know where the discussion you alluded to at the end of your original post is taking place, please let us mere mortals know !<br><br>Cheers,<br>--JonathanJonathan Perrethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05225413917140302974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-985159635193633235.post-45063552747128694112008-01-24T06:14:00.000-08:002008-01-24T06:14:00.000-08:00In my original post the discussion I meant was tha...In my original post the discussion I meant was that of the MSI + Patch pattern. Does the MSI team think this is a good thing, will this pattern be published anywhere, will tools vendors adopt it into their authoring environment somehow?<br><br>I would like the conversation to be a townhall style with Microsoft, Tools Vendors and MSI Experts ( End-User Developers ). <br><br>To my knowledge, this never occurs, only conversations been Microsoft and Tools Vendors occur. Some of us have backdoor channels with tools vendors to try to inject our opinions but this is the exception not the norm.Christopher Painterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12167478740431444267noreply@blogger.com