+1 KISS - only allowing a single web container
I think that the users that pickup the installer instead of the
tar.gz want a simple server and a simple user experience. I doubt
any of these users desire to have a server with two web containers.
I believe that the number of options we present to a user is
exponentially proportional to complexity.
-dain
On Jan 27, 2006, at 7:46 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I would prefer if we did not let a user install both web
containers. :)
I'd like to try out the installer soon.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 1/27/06, Erik Daughtrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, I knew that you'd asked for this, but I didn't realize that
you had a
strong conviction. I suppose I should've asked ;)
I'll leave it alone for now and focus on cleaning up a few things
left.
It would be great if a few others could try the installer and
provide some
feedback quickly.
Feedback is welcome. Thanks.
regards,
Erik
On Friday 27 January 2006 10:19, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 27, 2006, at 5:54 AM, Erik Daughtrey wrote:
Given the comments I've gotten, I'm going to change the installer
and go back
to the behavior where it does not allow the selection of both web
container
packs to install. I'm going to ditch the additional buttons which
allow
selected features to be inactive at runtime.
We could put this up for a vote, but since there have been very few
comments
on this topic, I assume that most folks just want an installer that
works
well.
I pretty much strongly prefer the way the installer works now, I
think I asked for it to be this way :-)
I won't stand in anyones way though.
My view is that the installer should present all the options
reasonably available. They are MUCH easier to configure in the
installer than in any other way, and I think that the additional
confusion while using the installer is minimal.
thanks
david jencks
