[izpack-devel] Patch for embedding panel configuration in thesingle install.xml

[Tino Schwarze]

Hi there,

On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 04:32:49PM +0200, Miraodb wrote:

> I don't really like this idea.
> I think the install.xml should stay as generic as possible.

While this is useful from the validation point of view, I find it rather
cumbersome to have lots of XML files.

> What i liked with having a seperate xml was that it could be really
> personlized and even better you could have a couple of them and just switch
> from one to another...

> Having the details of the userinput in install.xml is in my opinion not a
> good idea. But, heck... i'm not the only one using IzPack so...
> Anyone's opinion ??
> 
> Also another point... would you then get rid of the current way for
> userpinput ? i think that would be trouble for all of the people who got
> used to it.
> Would you then have both ? that's very confusing and also how could you
> managed both definitions ....

The contributed code simply checks whether there is an inline
definition. If there is none, the "old" way is used. Therefore, anybody
may choose to use inline or external XML.

> Uhm, i'm not sure if we need a vote here but i don't like this idea unless i
> didn't get the real message behing this patch.

I just finished integrating this into the trunk and was about to commit
- good, that I checked back. Since it is 100% backwards compatible, I'd
say it enhances usability and doesn't hurt anybody who doesn't want to
use it.

Bye,

Tino.