I agree with Dave on the issue of multiple containers. We had many
discussions on this list concerning the number of containers in an
image. The result was that we agreed to deliver 2 different assemblies
rather than having multiple containers in one assembly. If that was the
decision for the assemblies then I would think it makes sense to do the
same in the installer.
I also agree with Dave that we should revisit the issue of presenting
the list of components twice: once to include them in the image and once
to activate them in the runtime. I doubt that most users would
understand this distinction when initially installing Geronimo. Most
other packages consider the activation/inactivation of components to be
post-install setup and choose the defaults that make the most sense. In
our case I would expect that all components selected during install
would be active by default.
Joe
Dave Colasurdo wrote:
Erik Daughtrey wrote:
Dave, Thanks for the comments...
I made comments below. Would you create installer component JIRAs for
the items that make sense?
Yep. BTW, has it been decided if the installer is a 1.0.1 or 1.1 item?
On Thursday 19 January 2006 17:02, Dave Colasurdo wrote:
Looks like the Installer has made quite a bit of progress. Thanks
Erik!!
I'd like to suggest a few Usabality changes to the current installer..
I'm sure you are already aware of many of these and have plans to update
them. Just wanted to provide some input based on my first impression.
BTW, I've attempted to provide input based on my thoughts on how this
would be perceived from the perspective of a first time user.
*Package Selection Panel*
1)The available selections are really a hierarchy
-Server
--J2EE Features
---Jetty Web Container
----Jetty Sample Applications
---Tomcat Web Container
----Tomcat Sample Applications
Does Izpack allow you to capture the hierarchy graphically?
Not that I've seen. It looks like it's strictly a list box.
If not, anyway to insert padding to the front of entries to show the
hierarchy to the user? I think this would be a better solution than the
Inserting spaces is something worth trying.
I experimented with inserting spaces in front of the pack names and it
seemed to work fine. As expected, this also requires that all references
to the pack name in geronimo-izpack.xml, izpack-process.xml and
izpack-user-input.xml need to be updated. This results in a panel that
seems to show the hierarchy visually. Though adding the spaces for each
element in the xml files is a real hack and does seem troublesome. There
should be an easier way to accomplish this without unnaturally padding
or creating a custom panel. I'll post a question on this subject on the
izpack mailing list.
"Dependencies" box and would more clearly convey the relationship
between selections. Also, we should remove the dependencies box and the
I don't think it's possible to remove the dependencies box and keep
the overall look and feel.
Will also post this on the izpack mailing list. Are they responsive to
suggestions?
other righthand box that contains the Logo. The description box should
I agree that the 2nd graphic is redundant at this point. However, one
thing we have not explored is the fact that the graphic on the right
is actually different for each pack although for now each is a
distinct instance of the same bitmap. There is the potential to
enhance each bitmap - possibly by making the Geronimo image subdued
while overlaying something related to the pack. I have not tried
removing the graphic, but I don't think it's possible to remove it and
keep this look and feel.
be located directly to the right of the main selection box OR below it
on the left.
I doubt that this is easy to change. We can look into making some of
these changes in more detail at some point. Anything is actually
possible depending on the capabilities of IzPack itself and how much
we're willing to diverge the Geronimo installer from the IzPack
codebase. It may actually be possible to make some of the changes
without changing IzPack, but based on what I know right now, I don't
think so.
We've already diverged from the IzPack codebase and we need to factor
these changes into IzPack as we move forward or we may run into
problems related to these changes later as IzPack itself diverges.
I'm struggling a little with this at this point given that IzPack is a
generalized installer and some of the changes made are specific to
Geronimo. I tried to keep the changes separated, but our requirements
are reflected in code I wanted to keep generalized anyway. I don't
want to boil the ocean, but I'd also like to minimize problems
occurring from the two distinct dev paths as much as possible.
Graphical look and feel changes might be less painful to push back
into IzPack, but it's still a little worrisome.
I like the way the dependant boxes interact (turning off something at
the top of the hierarchy automatically trickles down to the dependant
choices)..
2) It seems that we are allowing the user to choose two web containers?
I thought we would limit the choice to just one?
The operator can install both containers, but they cannot activate
both at runtime.
For simplicity, I'd prefer to limit them to one web container. I would
think this is what 95% of users would want. I think it is confusing for
a user to install two web containers and keep one disabled. Isn't the
installer targeted for a novice user and not a sophisticated user that
wants to swap containers on the fly. Awhile back we had binary images
with multiple web containers and it caused lots of confusion with users.
3) It seems that it is currently possible to pick-and-choose selections
that result in a server that won't start. We need to decide which
choices are valid and assure that the resulting installations all work.
Flexibility is great, but we don't want to give users the ability to
choose non-working installations.
The intent is to prevent the building of a non-working server.
There's only one instance I'm aware of that will result in problems
and it will be fixed soon. If daytrader is selected, with no
database, then obviously there will be problems. David Jencks has
suggested that we just go ahead and install Derby when the J2EE
Features are selected -- and I plan to do this.
If you're aware of other instances please enumerate them...
My initial selections produced a server that wouldn't start.
I'll go back and retry a few permutations to see if it is different than
what you described.
4) The available disk space seems to only be specified for "Server". I
assume the other selections will eventually be updated.
IzPack only displays this for packs which have files associated. This
is one of the current issues about the installer. It installs
everything. This will be addressed.
5) Should the "Server" selection be re-labeled as Geronimo kernel or
Geronimo base infrastructure or something to better reflect what it is?
I don't have a real opinion on this.
6) The "Greyed out packs are required" comment is somewhat confusing..
Perhaps just adding the word (Required) next to the server selection and
removing the other comment would be clearer.
IzPackism. Fixing this would require overriding the ImgPacksPanel.
*Base Configuration Panel/Web Container Panel*
7) Not sure I understand the "Active at runtime" selections and how they
differ from the selections I've already made on the "Package Selection
Panel".. Is the idea that the package selection identifies which
packages get physically laid down on the target machine and "Active at
runtime" determines which of these are configured as initially enabled?
Not sure how common it would be to select a component and then specify
that it is disabled. Is it more appropriate to assume all choices are
enabled at installation and any disabling shoud be done directly in the
resulting installtion (perhaps via the admin console).
The installer is reflecting some some of the capabilities of
Geronimo. I posed this question to the list a while back. The
response I received was that this type of behavior would be desirable.
I think we should discuss the issue a bit more with the community. From
a *user perspective* , how common will it be to install a component
(aka pack) and then want it disabled in the resulting installation.
Installation should be about installing a simple working configuration.
Uncommon configuration options (install and disable) shouldn't be a
mainline choice in the installer. Advanced configuration should be done
after the server is installed (e.g via the adminconsole or by updating
xml files). I found the separate "active at runtime" panels to be a bit
confusing and suspect it will cause confusion with novice users.
7.5) The Web container "Active at runtime" selections are greyed out by
default when the Tomcat container is selected. Seems the default should
be enabled.
Bug. Fixed now. JIRA 1505.
*Configuration Checkpoint Panel*
8) Is it possible to place a confirmation summary of all the selections
and their size on this panel?
The summary is possible. The sizes might be interesting.
*Installation Progress Panel*
9) Probably want to pretty this Panel up with a Title such as
"Installing Geronimo components".
I figured this panel needed a little work.
10) The installation panel seems to hang for awhile even after the
progress bar indicates completion. Eventually the "next" selection is
available. Is this a pblm with izpack? Any chance of getting a
"completed message" in Big letters on the panel?
Packs installation?
It would not be trivial to change the packs installation panel.
*Processing Panel"
11) I had initially assumed the installation was now done and was
surprised that there was still more installation steps to be done.
Perhaps just a title on this Page "Installing Geronimo configurations".
Processing Panel is an IzPackism. Changing the title is not trivial.
It's possible that something might be done though.
12) Would be nice to have "Configuration completed successfully" or
"Configuration failed" message at the end of the output. Perhaps this is
just adding the word "successfully" to your existing message.
That's easy to add to the text being inserted into the processing
panel text box by the ConfigInstaller run.
13) I see that the installer allows a user to create an automatic
installation script. Is this a response file that can be used to invoke
the installer silently?
Yes, just supply the name of the xml saved as an argument to the
installer.
14) I like the fact that you provided a default installation that
doesn't require any selections other than accepting the license. Just
hitting next->next->next.. Joe's mom will appreciate that. :)
I want to cruise Joe's mom's web site when she's done :)
Hope these comments aren't too nitpicky.. I think the installer is
really shaping up nicely. Sometimes minor changes to panels make big
differences in a user's first impression..
Thanks
-Dave-
--
Joe Bohn
joe.bohn at earthlink.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot
lose." -- Jim Elliot
