| > In my opinion, there should be no middle ground for installer | > packaging. I think that statement is merely a cop-out. I do | > not agree that people "do not want" a comprehensive installer | > package.
If the software company claims to support the platform, then the installer should be configured for it. no compromise here. | | While I agree with you that there are plenty of areas where the installer | could be obviously improved - the cacheRealPath item being a good example - | I don't think it's possible for the installer to support every possible way | that the product can be configured. If this is the case, then the options should be included in the CF Administrator to do the specifics. not by hacking the registry or direct edits of configuraton files. | | With the exception of the cacheRealPath issue, these issues, while they may | be common to everyone installing CF and aren't local to you, don't have | anything at all to do with CFMX, but rather have to do with web server | configuration. No matter how well Macromedia makes the installer, they will | not be able to do away with the requirement that the person installing the | product have an adequate level of knowledge about web server configuration. Most servers admins are MSCE types, not CFMX types. | | This is something I run into quite a bit, actually. A lot of our customers | use IIS, but few take the time to learn the bare minimum about configuring | it properly until we find out about it. With Windows 2000, certainly, the | default IIS configuration leaves a lot to be desired. Even with Windows | Server 2003, there's quite a bit about the default OS and web server | configuration that should be changed before deployment. Unfortunately most of these admis have the ear of top management, a higher level thn the lowly developer who had hyped the purchase of the software. | | As servers become more complex, and do more things, I believe it's wishful | thinking to expect the installer to cover all options. At some point, the | expertise of a server administrator will be required. That's why we have | server administrators. | | And if you think the CFMX install is bad, try installing ANY content | management system - you're likely to have fits! No argument there. | | Keeping in mind the amount of QA time that would probably be necessary to | cover every possible configuration option, you might not be able to afford | it. There's no such thing as a free lunch. I don't think anyojne is looking for a free lunch. What is being asked is a configuraton that is advertised be covered. Any others can be referred to as "non-standard" and covered elsewhere is either release notes, or documentation. But, perhaps you are preaching to the choir. I love the platform, and hype it when I can. My job will be easier when these issues are addressed. My posts on this list are not to denigrate the product, but to assist in improving it, thus making it, if possible a no-brainer to deploy. The benefits will be increased sales and more rapid migration, That is a good thing.| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
