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-
