Yeah, it's not for everyone, but I still think it's worth knowing about. There are some environments where it's a great way to go.
Printable View
Yeah, it's not for everyone, but I still think it's worth knowing about. There are some environments where it's a great way to go.
I must agree, the ClickOnce approach may be overkill in some situations, but exactly what one wants in others. My applications probably too small to be concerned about upgrades. If I change it, I will probably change enough of it to create a whole new executable. And I have no DLLs to distribute with it.
But this may get more complicated when a license key is added. I'll have to dig into that.
To me it looks like underkill. Except for the autoupdate feature, this installation is (too) simplified, compared to a program with a real installer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou Arnold
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan Olesen
If you can write a C# application, you should be able to use a proper installation package generator.
I think you guys are going a bit overboard. The point of ClickOnce deployment is not to replace all installers, but to provide a simplified installation experience for simple programs. It's especially useful for programs that a user might only use once in a while to perform a quick task. I think it's perfect for what it does - it's certainly better than handing a user a bunch of files to hand-install or a full-blown installer for installing a single file and setting up a bunch of registry entries.
Note that even with ClickOnce, Visual Studio still provides the ability to create full installers. I don't know if C# Express provides this, though.
That is exactly the point. It doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcell59
ClickOnce publishing is the only option if you want to create an installer directly from C# Express. Using it for the first time is a somewhat confusing/frustrating experience because the Publish function does not tell you that you will get a ClickOnce installer. ClickOnce is not mentioned by name, and the ClickOnce concept is not explained. Instead, the dialogs gives some descriptions and asks some questions which seem a little off, and you sit there wondering why they ask these questions for a normal installer - until you discover that this is not a normal installer.
Anyway, I agree that ClickOnce is perfect for what it does - and I can't complain over a free programming IDE of C# Express' quality.
You're definitely right that it's frustrating and confusing for a first-timer. It's no better in VS 2005, either.
I still prefer InnoSetup:
The above source code creates a single installer which has a standard user interface and asks the user where they want their application installed (* defaulting to "C:\Program Files\MyApp\") and where they want the start menu icon (* defaulting to "Start->Programs->MyApp"); it also creates an uninstall entry in Add/Remove Programs called "MyApp v1.0".Code:[Setup]
AppName=MyApp
AppVerName=MyApp v1.0
DefaultDirName={pf}\MyApp
DefaultGroupName=MyApp
[Files]
Source: "MyProg.exe"; DestDir: "{app}"
[Icons]
Name: "{group}\MyApp"; Filename: "{app}\MyProg.exe"
:)
Yet on the other end of the scale InnoSetup is powerful enough to let you define your own interface pages and use OLE items like MSXML.
And it's free!
-------
* All placeholders like {pf} do of course expand to the appropriet local value when the installer is run. For example, in Germany {pf} expands to "C:\Programme".
You had me worried there. But fortunately it seems to default to the standard program path defined on that PC. Looks like a fine program BTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaccheus
(As a non-English user, I really hate it when installers assume that they do not need to ask Windows for a installation path. Other language versions of Windows do not have a C:\Program Files\ .)
Yeah, sorry, I should have made that clear: Placeholders like {pf} always expand to the appropriet local values, whatever they may be.
I'm pleased the thread went this far. I learned alot. Many thanks for your experience and opinions.