Rob Mensching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think that's rather unfair. I do not understand the problem that > Colin is having. There really haven't been enough details (or I > may have missed them) about what is being registered, how it is being > registered or what the whole thing is doing. At this point in time, > it sounds like there is something wrong in the code or the actual > registration on Vista. > > Blaming the complexity of COM registration on installation > technology is also rather unfair. COM registration is complex. > COM registration documentation is poor. Debugging COM registration > errors is painful. None of that has anything to do with the fact that > installation technologies are responsible for writing registry keys > that are supposed to make COM work. I did not attackt the tools. I attacked the need to use them. I know that the whole COM stuff just can be thought of by http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html
And Microsoft does a remarkable good job on creating complexity, just to sell you a few year later their new "simple approach". > > If you're going to rant, at least attack the right technology. > <smile/> Please read my mail, I said for what do we need such complex installation stuff? Because Microsoft dictates it. The tool-builders just have to follow... In the first line there should be no need for such stuff, I just I wished how much it took the Office teams to get the installers. Do they got it right in all it's glory, I doub it very much and those are well paid programmers.... Regards Friedrich ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
