As this was my comment I thought I should respond.
>"I believe you should write the install then the code - if you can't install
>it, don't code it."
>>That's simply not the way it works, and that isn't going to change. I get
>>where you are coming from though... the general installation layout of the
>>product does need to be >>understood sooner rather than later. The reason
>>that the installer isn't "done first" or in parallel with other development
>>is simple - everyone hates it. Getting anyone to do it >>is like pulling
>>teeth. Nobody on the team wants to be the "installer guy", for good reason.
>>(There is also the fact that it is intuitively backwards to write an
>>installer for >>something that doesn't exist yet.)
I like doing installs!
I know it is a bit flippant to say write the install first but in my experience
no one considers the install when choosing the latest and greatest development
code. If they did (and I feel Microsoft is to blame here) they wouldn’t touch a
lot of the technologies. COM+ was never properly supported for installs, moving
up to date some of the WFP stuff is incredibly completed to configure. SQL
server it still not properly scriptable without writing you own code.
I don’t think it is intuitively backwards to write an installer first – my
analogy is – hydrogen powered cars might be a good idea but if you can’t buy
hydrogen or aren’t going to put the infrastructure in place there is no point
building them. I think the same is true of code, make sure you can deploy it
before you write any code. Together we can make it happen J
Neil
Neil Sleightholm
X2 Systems Limited
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
WiX-users mailing list
WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users
