On 12/11/13 2:53 PM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote:
>Hi Alex, > >I like better the first idea (that the script is in the first package to >download, in a known place). >Furthermore, that would merge the logic for building the SDK manually and >building from the installer in one single build file, right ? I guess it is a separate question whether the main build.xml should call out to an installer.xml like we already do for download.xml. Also, the install script shouldn't have to run custom tasks like compc and mxmlc. Hopefully everything is built and then we get other stuff and copy it into the right places. But essentially, the script is co-located in the binary packages files. -Alex > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >Envoyé : mercredi 11 décembre 2013 23:26 >À : dev@flex.apache.org >Objet : Installer Revisited > >Hi, > >I've checked in enough stuff into flex-utilities/ant_on_air to try to >build out SDK installation in Ant. My plan is to create an ant script >that does what the current installer does, make sure it works in Ant, >then try to get it to work in ant_on_air. > >Of course, that will be a bit ugly since Ant only supports a simple >prompt to get license acceptance. But once that works, then I'll create >a custom task that populates the licensing dialog in the installer. > >Meanwhile, I've been pondering what the workflow should really be the >release manager and for installer users and am interested in what others >think. Right now my understanding is that we post an xml file on the >flex.apache.org website that lists the versions of Apache Flex that are >available for install, and the logic for installing is in the Installer >itself. > >With ant_on_air, we have the opportunity to move the install logic to a >separate script. The Installer code would then only do things that are >far less-likely to change, like manage a licensing dialog box, show a >progress bar, offer a set of choices, and via ant_on_air, download files, >copy files, etc. > >That sort of makes me want to bundle the install script into the release >packages instead of having to manage what will become a growing pile of >separate scripts as we create scripts for falcon-only installation, >FlexJS, and the current SDK. > >If we do that, the installer would be given a list of convenience binary >packages which have a build.xml in them with a "installForIDE" target. >The user picks a binary package, and the installer downloads the package, >validates it, expands it, and runs the installForIDE target on the >build.xml it finds in the package via ant_on_air. > >A model that is more similar to what the installer does now is that the >installer has a list of scripts it knows how to run and simply launches >ant_on_air on that script which downloads the binary package, validates >it, expands it, etc. But if we do that, where should these scripts live >in our repo? It feels funny to take them from the sdk or asjs repo and >not have them go in the release packages. Should they live in the >installer repo? > >Thoughts? >-Alex >
