Clay Baenziger wrote: > Hi Dave, > My apologies, I think I did a poor job of communicating some > assumptions in my e-mails. However, I think using AI will help the > intern team; some of the benefits I see are: > > *To interface with the AI engine an XML manifest only needs be provided. > XML can easily be verified and is a well defined format which can be > verified by the team as they develop, allowing for an easy incremental > development process. > > *Building a UI is one component required for a text installer. If > the Slim Engine is used, then a UI and an ability to interface with the C > based Slim Install framework will be needed. This is two components and > thus more complexity and code the team would need to develop to reach the > same end goal. >
I'm not sure I buy your comparison. I look at it as: - the existing GUI interfaces to the slim engine using C, so examples of doing that are available - there is no existing code written to emit AI manifests. That'll have to be developed from scratch. I suspect you have an unstated assumption about how the team might implement a text UI which perhaps is coloring your evaluation? Beyond that, there's no useful progress reporting from the AI engine, while there is well-defined functionality for that built into slim. I'd view useful progress reporting as an essential feature of a UI. > *Using the AI engine allows maximal functionality in the future, however, > if the Slim Engine is used that limits future functionality as that > engine was never developed to be a configurable and extensible > installer - it serves our "one button install" use case - only. > > *A "one button install" straightforward and simple use case can be built > through an AI manifest without exposing all of the features of AI, if we > don't want to. > Both of which are true, but their value depends on establishing the desired functionality. Dave
