One very important clarification I want to make, the WiX Standard Bootstrapper Application is *native* code. It will run on WinXP+ with no dependencies.
The wixstdba is also somewhat customizable but definitely does not support as much as the UI element does for MSI packages. Most of the scenarios you list below are supported by Burn now. The only thing that I think is really lacking right now (besides stability) is the completely declarative UI elements. It *will* be a while before we get something that extensive. I hear you though and understand a bit bettter what you'd like to accomplish. Thanks to you and Daniel both. I'll let this data percolate over the weekend and see if anything comes into mind. -- virtually, Rob Mensching - http://RobMensching.com LLC On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Vitalii Dolia <vdo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > From: r...@robmensching.com > > Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:13:34 -0800 > [...] > > In your first example, I don't understand, why you have to create a UI in > > your MSI. Burn will show UI for all scenarios (install, repair, > uninstall, > > upgrade patch) so you do not need a UI in your MSIs. > > I agree that it may > > appear easier to just reuse UI in your MSI until you factor in caching > and > > some progress while running pre-requisite installs. > > The main reason is to reuse UI which was already implemented and tested, of > course. The second reason is that sometimes the standard UI provided by > Windows Installer was "good enough" to get the job done. Sometimes I don't > need any fancy UI features, nor I want to drag WPF dependencies, nor I want > to get back to MFC or plain Win32 API writing UI for my installer. <UI /> > element did the trick for me in a declarative way. I don't expect the > standard bootstrapper dll from WiX will be that customizable in a near > future and it will still keep depending on WPF even after. > > Please, don't get me wrong, I'm still huge fan of WiX and I do understand > the original idea behind the Burn. Of course, I'll roll up my sleeves and > give it a try writing burn-driven bootstrapper, but for now it's sometimes > good to have an option to use a "dumb" chainer. > > > I don't follow your second scenario. Or, rather, I don't see how it is > > different from the previous scenario. Can you provide more details? > > It's more like a selector, not a chainer. Installing only one msi from a > set according to a running environment (OS version, platform etc.), so user > will not see a bunch of popping-up windows installers, but only one. Yes, > maybe it's still a variation of the first scenario. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware Attacks Learn about various malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understand malware threats, the impact they can have on your business, and how you can protect your company and customers by using code signing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ WiX-users mailing list WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users
