[Installers] Some thoughts regarding better organization for installers

[Alex Karasulu]

Hi all,

Was just looking at the installers project during release and I got some ideas. 

(1) Perhaps we should break apart this big apacheds module under it into separate installers for:
      o server-installer (apacheds module)
      o studio-installer (studio module)
      o suite-installer (suite module)
(2) Fix suite installer so it no longer needs to pull installer from a website? Is this even worth doing?

I'm thinking this might help fix several issues in the pom due to dependencies etc, and how we manage to build the suite installer .

WDYT?

--
Microsoft gives you Windows, Linux gives you the whole house ...

[Emmanuel Lecharny-3]

Alex Karasulu wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Was just looking at the installers project during release and I got some
> ideas.
>
> (1) Perhaps we should break apart this big apacheds module under it into
> separate installers for:
>       o server-installer (apacheds module)
>       o studio-installer (studio module)
>       o suite-installer (suite module)
>  

Perhaps we should simply remove the last two installers, and keep only
the ADS installer.
> (2) Fix suite installer so it no longer needs to pull installer from a
> website? Is this even worth doing?
>  
I think we can doom the suite installer. It does not make a lot of sense
anyway, now that we have ADS embedded into Studio.
> I'm thinking this might help fix several issues in the pom due to
> dependencies etc, and how we manage to build the suite installer .
>  
yeah, maybe.
> WDYT?
>
>  

[Alex Karasulu]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@...> wrote:

Alex Karasulu wrote:

Hi all,

Was just looking at the installers project during release and I got some
ideas.

(1) Perhaps we should break apart this big apacheds module under it into
separate installers for:
     o server-installer (apacheds module)
     o studio-installer (studio module)
     o suite-installer (suite module)
 

Perhaps we should simply remove the last two installers, and keep only the ADS installer.

Why remove them (especially the studio one)?  These installers are not in the ApacheDS top project.  The installers project is standalone for managing all our installers.

(2) Fix suite installer so it no longer needs to pull installer from a
website? Is this even worth doing?
 

I think we can doom the suite installer. It does not make a lot of sense anyway, now that we have ADS embedded into Studio.

I like the suite installer because it allows for an ApacheDS formal installation in addition to having it available to start via Studio.  But you might be right about this.  Wonder what others thinking as well.

Alex
 

--
Microsoft gives you Windows, Linux gives you the whole house ...

[Emmanuel Lecharny-3]

Alex Karasulu wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@...>
> wrote:
>
>  
>> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Was just looking at the installers project during release and I got some
>>> ideas.
>>>
>>> (1) Perhaps we should break apart this big apacheds module under it into
>>> separate installers for:
>>>      o server-installer (apacheds module)
>>>      o studio-installer (studio module)
>>>      o suite-installer (suite module)
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> Perhaps we should simply remove the last two installers, and keep only the
>> ADS installer.
>>    
>
>
> Why remove them (especially the studio one)?  These installers are not in
> the ApacheDS top project.  The installers project is standalone for managing
> all our installers.
>  

Because Studio already has all the needed installers ?

>
>  
>>  (2) Fix suite installer so it no longer needs to pull installer from a
>>    
>>> website? Is this even worth doing?
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> I think we can doom the suite installer. It does not make a lot of sense
>> anyway, now that we have ADS embedded into Studio.
>>
>>    
>
> I like the suite installer because it allows for an ApacheDS formal
> installation in addition to having it available to start via Studio.  But
> you might be right about this.  Wonder what others thinking as well.
>  

Yeah, me too. Guys ?

[Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot-2]

Hi guys,

See inline comments...

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@...> wrote:

Alex Karasulu wrote:

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@...>
wrote:

 

Alex Karasulu wrote:

   

Hi all,

Was just looking at the installers project during release and I got some
ideas.

(1) Perhaps we should break apart this big apacheds module under it into
separate installers for:
    o server-installer (apacheds module)
    o studio-installer (studio module)
    o suite-installer (suite module)


     

Perhaps we should simply remove the last two installers, and keep only the
ADS installer.
   

Why remove them (especially the studio one)?  These installers are not in
the ApacheDS top project.  The installers project is standalone for managing
all our installers.
 

Because Studio already has all the needed installers ?

Studio has its own installers parts in the studio sub-project. Right now these installers are triggered by hand when creating a release. I believe this can be automated in Maven. I'll try to do that for our next release after 1.2.0.

 (2) Fix suite installer so it no longer needs to pull installer from a
   

website? Is this even worth doing?


     

I think we can doom the suite installer. It does not make a lot of sense
anyway, now that we have ADS embedded into Studio.

   

I like the suite installer because it allows for an ApacheDS formal
installation in addition to having it available to start via Studio.  But
you might be right about this.  Wonder what others thinking as well.
 

Yeah, me too. Guys ?

I think we should keep it and fix it, even if it's one more installer to maintain. I just need to dive into the code and see how we can get integrate this with the new Maven build of Studio.

I like the idea of having a simple "Combo" installer for Windows which installs everything Server and Client, even if Apache DS is not embedded in Studio.

Regards,
P-A