coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Garrett Serack <garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No. 

I never mentioned "Forcing"

I'm filling a void created when I decided that *Installation* should not be conflated with *Configuration* (as is typical with today's MSI installers)

By removing the option for package creators to pop up a window for configuration, a consumer would be left to discover where the configuration files for a particular application are kept.

The Web Platform Installer that the IIS folks have published, allows publishers to push a bit of metadata with the installer that will ask the user for some configuration information (like, database connections, etc).

So, rather than forcing that at install time, I think it might be a good idea to support a simple data-driven configuration interface that publishers could optionally use with trivial effort, so that we're supporting Windows users in with the tools that they expect to be able to use. (MMC)

Garrett Serack | Open Source Software Developer | Microsoft Corporation 
I don't make the software you use; I make the software you use better on Windows.


-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre.php@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:42 AM
To: Garrett Serack
Cc: Ritchie Annand; coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Idea: Providing a generic user interface for configuring applications

hi,

What's the goal exactly here? Trying to force apps to use a given configuration model or something different specific to the CoApp tools?

ps: it would rock if you could use text email only

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Garrett Serack <garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Well, I was thinking XML as a validate-able data format.  I didn't 
> actually have a plan. .INI file?

--
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org