To: wix-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Component Rules
>
> Yeah actually that's quite nice.
>
>
> On 29 August 2013 18:50, John Cooper wrote:
>
> > I like that. A little table-driven touch custom action.
> >
> > --
> > John
KS 66227
> Office: 913-341-3434 x791011
> jocoo...@jackhenry.com
> www.jackhenry.com
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Phil Wilson [mailto:phildgwil...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:30 PM
> To: General discussion for Windows Installer XML
I've used it in your scenario - here's an example of the (almost) reverse
scenario:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2013/05/23/10421023.aspx
Phil Wilson
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:29 AM, wrote:
> @Phil Wilson: I like that idea. It seems less destructive than removing
> the files and
ry & Associates, Inc.(r)
> > Shawnee Mission, KS 66227
> > Office: 913-341-3434 x791011
> > jocoo...@jackhenry.com
> > www.jackhenry.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: John Ludlow [mailto:john.ludlow...@gmail.co
l Wilson [mailto:phildgwil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:30 PM
To: General discussion for Windows Installer XML toolset.
Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Component Rules
If they're not being replaced because of the file modification rules, then you
could write a custom actio
Interesting. My experience with that in the past (I tried to use it to
solve a similar problem) was that it didn't work because the decision about
whether to install a particular file was made in the script generation
phase (where immediate actions run) but RemoveFile runs after that. But
that was
We don't use minor upgrades. We do patch, but in practice patches always
involved versioned assemblies.
We also use very conservative Major Upgrade scheduling where the old product is
entirely removed before the new product is installed. This means I have to
work harder to migrate settings fr
S 66227
> Office: 913-341-3434 x791011
> jocoo...@jackhenry.com
> www.jackhenry.com
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Ludlow [mailto:john.ludlow...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:35 AM
> To: General discussion for Windows Installer XML to
, Inc.(r)
Shawnee Mission, KS 66227
Office: 913-341-3434 x791011
jocoo...@jackhenry.com
www.jackhenry.com
-Original Message-
From: John Ludlow [mailto:john.ludlow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:35 AM
To: General discussion for Windows Installer XML toolset.
Subject: Re: [W
As long as there is an appropriate file to use, I agree, although really it
has the same result. It wouldn't be appropriate to make them a companion of
a file they're unrelated to as that would introduce a bogus dependency and
if that other file ever disappeared, then you could introduce some nasty
Well, it probably won't do what you're expecting. By the time RemoveFiles
runs, the install has already decided it won't install those files, so what
will most likely happen is it will remove the file but not install the new
version.
A trick (well, a horrible hack, really) I've used is called vers
A better way to do that would be to make them CompanionFile's with a versioned
assembly.
--
John Merryweather Cooper
Build & Install Engineer -- ESA
Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.(r)
Shawnee Mission, KS 66227
Office: 913-341-3434 x791011
jocoo...@jackhenry.com
www.jackhenry.com
-Original
Thanks Blair.
On 08/20/2010 03:54 PM, Blair wrote:
> If the new version of the file has the same name as the old file and goes
> into the same directory, keep the component's guid the same.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Lord [mailto:chris.l...@atterotech.com]
> Sent: Thursday, Augus
If the new version of the file has the same name as the old file and goes
into the same directory, keep the component's guid the same.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Lord [mailto:chris.l...@atterotech.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:13 AM
To: General discussion for Windows Installe
No, it does not.
-Original Message-
From: Uma Harano [mailto:uhar...@esri.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:30 AM
To: General discussion for Windows Installer XML toolset.
Subject: [WiX-users] Component rules
Hi,
Does this below break the component rules?
Create one merge module with
Hi,
I've asked about similar issue a few days ago (on 7th January 2010):
http://n2.nabble.com/Question-about-Shared-Components-and-their-Key-Paths-td4265681.html#a4265681
There is a blog post mentioning the components are tracked for each
product independently:
http://blogs.msdn.com/heaths/archiv
Windows Installer registers components using the component GUID, ProductCode
and key path to the component. So for files, each instance of the
component, based on ProductCode registers with its own path. The component
can be registered more than once to the same path as well but each instance
of
sFolder\Microsoft Shared\Office10". That was fun...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Nannenga
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 21:43
To: General discussion for Windows Installer XML toolset.
Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Compon
teve Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:24 AM
To: wix-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Component Rules
Thank you all for the discussion. I still find myself unable to understand what
risk is posed in this situation by me intentionally igno
l leaving one
behind as was mentioned earlier. I'm not having a hard time with the basics of
component rules, i have read through and have a fairly good understanding of
what they are and where i have chosen to violate them. I am having a hard time
seeing what may break on my web server if i mak
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jmcfadyen
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:07 AM
To: wix-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Component Rules
hi john,
I see your point this is something that I have not experienced in the past
and doesnt seem to follow normal known logic. you mind if i test this
=
>
>
> WixProject2: Product.wxs
> ==[BEGIN===
>
> http://schemas.microsoft.com/wix/2006/wi";>
> Language="1033" Version="1.0.0.0" Manufacturer="WixProject2"
> UpgradeCode="04a4766b-1d31-4ab7-bb57-e5d5b02ad6de">
>
>
ROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jmcfadyen [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:17 PM
To: wix-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Component Rules
to be honest i dont have a good answer for that question. even if there was a
good answer there is no tools
ehalf Of jmcfadyen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:15 PM
> To: wix-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Component Rules
>
> hi all,
>
> I think you may be getting confused with reference counting here. There
> are
> two diff
Steve Baker wrote:
> My conclusion from my testing still leads me to believe that in my situation,
> at least for files, there shouldn't be any chance of one web application
> breaking another even though the component id is the same for two separate
> resources. John's statement that ref-counti
ECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:32 PM
To: wix-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Component Rules
hi chad,
in reading this further this doesn't seem to follow known logic. this could
easily be confirmed by monitoring the registry at the locations described in
my bl
hi chad,
in reading this further this doesn't seem to follow known logic. this could
easily be confirmed by monitoring the registry at the locations described in
my blog post before and after each installation. the logic you present in
this case doesn't match the logic I have accustomed myself t
PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jmcfadyen [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:15 PM
To: wix-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Component Rules
hi all,
I think you may be getting confused with reference counting here. There are
two different types of reference
keys, Both will be written. However, at uninstall, only the last to be
> uninstalled, will be uninstalled.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:50
;,
"wix-users@lists.sourceforge.net" , "[EMAIL
PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [WiX-users] Component Rules
I believe component ref-counting for file based data is handled at the product
code and location level. That's why Chad see's the res
ever, at uninstall, only the last to be uninstalled, will be
uninstalled.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Baker
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; wix-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [WiX-users] C
Chad,
The situation you describe is exactly what we will be doing. All 30 of these
web applications get installed to the same machine, all to different locations
on the file system. Until yesterday I believed exactly as you have stated, the
second application updating the Component reference wo
32 matches
Mail list logo
