On 5/16/07, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's a good write up and I think all 4 of those options could be a valid approach, but one thing to remember is that I don't think that any one option below negates any of the other options. I actually think that we could probably provide all of them (if we really wanted too).
Yes, that's a good point.
That being said, we still need a default or standard install option and IMO #1 is the best balance between simplicity for users and developers.
I think so too.
I am 50/50 on #2 and the installer idea. I don't have a problem with it since it doesn't negate using #1 as the default option, but somehow I see it as being more trouble than it's worth. It could take a fairly significant amount of code to develop a proper installer for each platform and you have to remember that it's not just installations which you have to account for, it's upgrades as well, and that means the you'd have to touch the installer for each release which could be a pain.
I will need to develop a couple of these and I'd like to contribute them to Roller.
I think #3 is a pretty nice idea for people who just want to evaluate Roller or are going to do a really simple/personal install, and like #2 it doesn't negate any of the other options.
I intend to continue supporting the Blogapps Server, which includes Roller, JSPWiki, Tomcat and Derby -- but I'm not going to propose doing this for Apache Roller (yet).
I definitely wouldn't want to have Roller be responsible for interacting with various web containers as part of the installation, so for that reason I don't like #4.
I agree.
So my vote would be for #1, with #2 and #3 being optional offerings for any containers that someone wanted to write/maintain them for.
That's my current thinking as well. - Dave
