[izpack-users] Using Compression in Packs

[Hal Vaughan]

On Thursday 04 May 2006 11:55, Bartz, Klaus wrote:
> Hi Hal,
> may be there is an different behavior at web installations.
> For this special case I have done nothing extra else I had
> assumed that it uses the same base classes.
> If you has changed there something, please send the diff.

The web install using the same packs and same routines.  I double 
checked that when I did the encryption.  I'd have published the 
encryption already, but it requires SimpleConfig and we won't be 
publish that on the list for feedback until Fabrice gets back (I think 
he's back from his honeymoon, but wasn't expecting to get back to Paris 
until sometime in the next week).  I'd really like to take care of 
SimpleConfig and everything connected with that first, so things don't 
get confused.  Once that's settled, I have a SuperUserPanel, 
DecryptionPanel (which handles getting a password for encrypted packs), 
and a ProgramFinder Panel (which does not use SimpleConfig) that I'll 
publish on the list.  I think I may have one or two others and I think 
I already sent out the DataCheckPanel for debugging.

SimpleConfig is based on the config things we were discussing before you 
went in for surgery.  You may remember we were talking about a few 
issues, and I think that included why to NOT add more config options to 
install.xml.

I just checked my file sizes and found why I was confused.  The 
compressed zip file of OpenOffice 2.0.2 for Windows is about 90 MB and 
I was comparing the pack to that, and they're about the same size.  I 
had not checked the unpacked files and just found they're about 200 MB 
in size --- so compression is working.  I just compared the wrong file 
sizes.

> >And, while I'm at it, I've never used Jar files on Windows before. 
> > Is it just me, or are then not double clickable by default?  I'm
> > going have to add a batch file with the download for my clients
> >since most of
> >them get confused with right clicking or other methods that
> >aren't just
> >a double click to run something.  I'm also willing to bet this is a
> >Microsoft thing connected with the Sun/Microsoft feud.
>
> I think, I have not really understand what you mean...
> The double click action will be written by an installation of a
> program which handles files with that extension. May be the default
> for .jar is to call a VM with -jar. I prefer winzip because more
> often I must look into a jar file as execute it with -jar and
> no more params :-) Therefore double click operation is not
> always the same.
> For execution I prefer also a batch file.

On Windows XP when I click or double click a jar file, a window with the 
contents opens up.  I was hoping a user could just double click it and 
it would run it with Java, but it doesn't.  So I'm going to have to 
work out a batch file, which means another download for a web install.  
(The user will have to download and install Java, then download the 
pack and batch file, and run the batch file.)  The CD install will be 
easy to set up, though.

Hal