On 14 April 2010 15:17, Garrett Serack wrote:
> WinSXS allows a publisher of a shared library to set the policy of the shared
> library so that if they put in a bug fix, but do alter the binary interface
> (ABI) then at run time, the application picks up the latest ("Most
> recommended") *binar
e the software you use better on
Windows.
-Original Message-
From: coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft....@lists.launchpad.net
[mailto:coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft@lists.launchpad.net] On
Behalf Of Gordon Schumacher
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:38 AM
To
On 4/14/2010 6:58 AM, Trent Nelson wrote:
> So, I'd argue there's a use case for projects to be explicit about
> which versions of other components they rely upon for a given release,
> and that there should be a way for CoApp to support that.
> If we move towards building, signing and distributing
On 4/7/2010 12:21 PM, Garrett Serack wrote:
> I like the idea of \\ too, but one of my
> goals was to have the ability to symlink the current version to a
> predictable well-known-path, and I'd like to use the same pattern
> for all aspects of location determination. (web apps, desktop
> apps, lib
ehalf Of Rivera, Rafael
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 12:08 PM
To: coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Another kind of package
Sorry, I was too quick to reply. I understand you can run both side by
side, which is cool.
Just wanted to add some tiny print that said
Sorry, I was too quick to reply. I understand you can run both side by
side, which is cool.
Just wanted to add some tiny print that said "reparse aware" next to
your use of "application". Swapping of links creates a disaster for
normal applications that load bits from their directory at runtime.
Hmm, do you have a scenario that benefits from this? I'd still have to
kill the old application to launch the updated one...
/rafael
On 4/7/2010 2:36 PM, Garrett Serack wrote:
> So it turns out that option #1 has another benefit.
>
> ** You can delete and recreate the symlink without having to s
=microsoft@lists.launchpad.net
[mailto:coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft@lists.launchpad.net] On
Behalf Of Rivera, Rafael
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:01 AM
To: coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Another kind of package
Yep yep. Option 1 has defini
ft Corporation
> I don't make the software you use; I make the software you use better on
> Windows.
>
> From: coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft....@lists.launchpad.net
> [mailto:coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft@lists.launchpad.net]
> On Behalf Of River
ehalf Of Rivera, Rafael
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:46 AM
To: coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Another kind of package
I understand legacy OSes are still in play, our product is actually
still hosted on Windows Server 2003, for various bureaucratic reasons
.net
> [mailto:coapp-developers-bounces+trevor=dennis-it@lists.launchpad.net]
> On Behalf Of Garrett Serack
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:22 AM
> To: Rivera, Rafael; coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Another kind of package
>
>
lto:coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft@lists.launchpad.net] On
Behalf Of Trevor Dennis
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:58 AM
To: coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Another kind of package
XP/2003 don't support symbolic links at all. Will junctions (
Garrett Serack
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:22 AM
To: Rivera, Rafael; coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Another kind of package
Arg!
We're absolutely trying to avoid relying on LUAFS (the component that
silently virtualizes writes out of [\Pro
es+garretts=microsoft@lists.launchpad.net
[mailto:coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft@lists.launchpad.net] On
Behalf Of Rivera, Rafael
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 6:46 PM
To: coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Another kind of package
I'm new
I'm new to the conversation, so I don't have quoted material -- apologies.
*Program Files\ hosting*
Starting with Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008, we have
virtualization that silently takes over and redirects (for appcompat
reasons) writes to the caller's virtual application store. With W
coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Another kind of package.
>> I don't think it's really a "web library" if you have to edit it.
Good Point.
>> maybe we just need to always put the neutral stuff in just plain program
>> files.
use better on
Windows.
From: Elizabeth M Smith [mailto:emsm...@elizabethmariesmith.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 1:08 PM
To: Garrett Serack
Cc: Trevor Dennis; coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Another kind of package.
On 4/6/2010 4:00 PM, Garrett Serack
On 4/6/2010 4:00 PM, Garrett Serack wrote:
ES>> Except then you run into things that AREN'T web apps being
written in a web language using a library.
ES>> PHP-GTK and PyGTK scripts, pyrus/pear packaging code, phpunit
test suites
ES>> - they all want to use libraries that aren't necessarily con
#x27;Elizabeth M Smith'; Garrett Serack
Cc: coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: RE: [Coapp-developers] Another kind of package.
That's strange. It's much easier and quicker to read a person's reply right at
the top of the message instead of scrolling all the way
From: coapp-developers-bounces+trevor=dennis-it@lists.launchpad.net
[mailto:coapp-developers-bounces+trevor=dennis-it@lists.launchpad.net]
On Behalf Of Elizabeth M Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 1:13 PM
To: Garrett Serack
Cc: coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-de
On 4/6/2010 2:23 PM, Garrett Serack wrote:
Bottom Poster!???!! Arg! I preferred bottom-posting, but in my world,
it's just not done.
Heh - in the open source world you get your head taken off for it (sigh)
>> $base_web_location///
...\applications\\ or ... \applications \\\?
Pa
Bottom Poster!???!! Arg! I preferred bottom-posting, but in my world, it's
just not done.
>> $base_web_location///
...\applications\\ or ... \applications
\\\?
Package-version as the dir name is a bit more traditional, I think.
>> As to the last issue - the idea of "useful scripts"
elopers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Another kind of package.
Hi,
I think I'd still prefer them to be under Program Files if possible.
Windows admins expect applications to be in a standard place and I
don't think they care too much if i
.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:52 AM
To: Garrett Serack
Cc: coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Another kind of package.
Yeah, I see what you mean about the data directories and config files. If the
web apps wanted to follow any type of standard, they would
>
>
> *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.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Trevor Dennis [mailto:tre...@dennis-it.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 06,
the software you use; I make the software you use better on
Windows.
From: Trevor Dennis [mailto:tre...@dennis-it.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 9:57 AM
To: Garrett Serack
Cc: coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Another kind of package.
Hi,
I think I'd
Hi,
I think I'd still prefer them to be under Program Files if possible.
Windows admins expect applications to be in a standard place and I don't
think they care too much if it's a windows app vs web app. Microsoft places
all their web apps under Program Files unless the user chooses otherwise.
E
In the blueprints (http://coapp.org/Blueprints/Packages), I've outlined six
types of packages:
Applications & Services
(PHP, Apache, Gimp, Open Office)
System tools & shared utilities
(awk, grep, etc)
Libraries
(static libs)
Shared Libraries
(DLLs)
Plugins
(PHP extensions, Apache Modules, browse
28 matches
Mail list logo
