That's a good point. Thanks for the input; I think I have enough info to implement this now.
Derek -----Original Message----- From: Nicholas Muguira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 6:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WiX-devs Subject: Re: [WiX-devs] rfc: re-architect wix extensions I don't think that it would be that odd for it to have only those listed in it. I know that there are classes in java that exist just to have constants or the equivalent, and the same is true for some classes in .Net (System.Drawing.Brushes for one). It just seems that if defining a group such as this, having one clear place for them would be cleaner and easier to document. On 11/17/05, Derek Cicerone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, I should have been more specific. We just need a way to expose > TableDefinitionCollection somewhere (this is a collection of TableDefintion > classes, each of which defines the schema for an individual msi table). > > We could either have a property in the WixExtension that exposes this > collection, or create an entirely new class which contains the collection. > Putting it in the main extension class is easier but kinda muddies the idea > of just having this class as a branching point for the other extensions. > Putting it in a separate class is also a bit strange because I think it may > be the only thing that goes in there! > > Another thing that I keep forgetting to bring up: now that we have support > for extensions to create their own message extensions, I'd also like to > remove occurrences of the ExtensionMessages class (it essentially allowed an > extension to send arbitrary error/warning/verbose messages). However, I now > believe that it would be better to force extension to use the strongly-typed > message infrastructure to ensure localization will always be available. > It's not very difficult to extend the normal wix messages (or use them in an > extension) so this would make things cleaner. > > Derek > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicholas Muguira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 2:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WiX-devs > Subject: Re: [WiX-devs] rfc: re-architect wix extensions > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding what they will be used for (it's been a > very long week and day and I definately feel like a pinto missing on > about 3 of my 4 cylinders right now), but my understanding is that the > MsiTablesExtension class/interface would house nothing more than > information about the tables for querying the database and using that > information. > > If so, just have a class like MsiTables that has nothing but static > members, and one for each table. > > Or were you proposing a class that would have member representing > each table and columns such as: > > MsiTables.Error.Error /* Integer */ > MsiTables.Error.Template /*String */ > > The latter would be very time intensive to develop. > > On 11/17/05, Derek Cicerone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1. The single method protects us from adding new interfaces but not > > necessarily from changes in the interface. However, I don't anticipate > that > > the core wix tools will add any new types of extensions. So the > overridable > > properties will probably work just fine. > > 2. Could you elaborate on this a bit more? > > > > Thanks, > > Derek > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nicholas Muguira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:56 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WiX-devs > > Subject: Re: [WiX-devs] rfc: re-architect wix extensions > > > > 1. I like overridable properties better than the one method, but I > > think this may hurt extensibility later on and introduce version > > dependencies. > > > > 2. Why not store the TableDefinitions in a static class? > > > > > > On 11/17/05, Derek Cicerone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's basically a factory, especially if we take Nicholas's > > suggestion > > > and have a single method that returns classes that implement specific > > > interfaces. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, two questions: > > > > > > Should we have overridable properties for each extension type OR use one > > > method to return each extension type (as Nicholas suggested)? > > > Should we put the common things like TableDefintions as a property in > the > > > main class or instead put it in yet another extension class (I guess > > > something like MsiExtension or MsiSchemaExtension)? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Derek > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > From: Rob Mensching [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:05 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > 'WiX-devs' > > > > > > Subject: RE: [WiX-devs] rfc: re-architect wix extensions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, I see why your initial proposal is more flexible... not much more > > > overhead either. Basically the WixExtension class is a factory, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > From: Derek Cicerone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 10:23 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WiX-devs' > > > Subject: RE: [WiX-devs] rfc: re-architect wix extensions > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point - I should have also mentioned that alternative. I > > > believe the non-interface solution is a bit cleaner because it allows us > > to > > > keep the code for each extension in its own class while having the > > advantage > > > of the appearance of a single class being visible to the user so that > they > > > can run the different commands as you illustrated below. > > > > > > > > > > > > To summarize, with interfaces: > > > > > > - all extension methods go into one central class that > implements > > > the various interfaces > > > > > > - user can specify this class as the extension for all wix > tools > > > > > > - individual tool extensions (or at least their exposed entry > > > points) are all in one main class like ScaExtension. > > > > > > > > > > > > Without interface: > > > > > > - one extension class implements WixExtension, which then > > > optionally contains references to the individual tool extension class > > > > > > - user can specify this class as the extension for all wix > tools > > > > > > - individual tool extensions remain isolated in classes like > > > ScaCompilerExtension, ScaDecompilerExtension, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Derek > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > From: Rob Mensching [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 9:24 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WiX-devs' > > > Subject: RE: [WiX-devs] rfc: re-architect wix extensions > > > > > > > > > > > > What about the option where there is an interface for each Extension > type > > > that a single class could implement. So you could do: > > > > > > > > > > > > candle.exe -ext "extension.dll,ExtensionClass" > > > > > > light.exe -ext "extension.dll,ExtensionClass" > > > > > > dark.exe -ext "extension.dll,ExtensionClass" > > > > > > > > > > > > That ExtensionClass could then implement the ICompilerExtension, > > > IBinderExtension, ITableDefinitionColleciton, IDecompilerExtension. Are > > the > > > significant benefits of one method over the other? > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > > Derek Cicerone > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:22 PM > > > To: 'WiX-devs' > > > Subject: [WiX-devs] rfc: re-architect wix extensions > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm currently working on supporting decompiler extensions > > (which > > > would basically allow someone to create an extension for the decompiler > > that > > > would allow custom tables to be converted back into wix authoring). > This > > > will complete the round-tripping of wxs -> msi -> wxs again. > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently we have several wix extensions: > > > > > > - PreprocessorExtension > > > > > > - CompilerExtension > > > > > > - SchemaExtension (its implemented by the CompilerExtension) > > > > > > - BinderExtension > > > > > > - DecompilerExtension > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, in order to use a Preprocessor extension as well as a > compiler > > > extension, two different -ext options must be passed to candle, like > this: > > > > > > -ext "extention.dll, PreprocessorExtensionClass" -ext "extension.dll, > > > CompilerExtensionClass" > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not too bad because most extensions currently only implement the > > > compiler extension. However, now that we'll have a decompiler extension > > > things get kinda hairy because the decompiler extension must also > > implement > > > SchemaExtension (to get the table definitions) and requires the user to > > know > > > the two different classes to use within the extension for the compiler > and > > > decompiler respectively. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose creating a new WixExtension class to be the main > entry > > > class for all extensions. This class would basically be an abstract > class > > > with properties that would return a PreprocessorExtension, > > > CompilerExtension, etc. if an extension overrides the value to provide > the > > > specific extension class. This class would also contain information > > common > > > to multiple extensions like the TableDefinitions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's an idea of what it would look like (this is pseudo code): > > > > > > > > > > > > class WixExtension > > > > > > { > > > > > > public virtual CompilerExtension CompilerExtension > > > > > > { > > > > > > get { return null; } > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > public virtual DecompilerExtension DecompilerExtension > > > > > > { > > > > > > get { return null; } > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > public virtual TableDefinitionCollection TableDefinitions > > > > > > { > > > > > > get { return null; } > > > > > > } > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > If we do the proposed changes, since this will break backwards > > > compatibility, I'll also be modifying the CompilerExtension to add the > > > suggested extra optional attributes in the ParseElement method (please > see > > > earlier email). If anyone has any suggestions for other breaking > changes > > > needed for the extension model, this would be a good time to bring them > up > > J > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Derek > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today Register for a JBoss Training Course. Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005. For more info visit: http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7628&alloc_id=16845&op=click _______________________________________________ WiX-devs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-devs
