Installation Package with custom icon

[Chuck Bytes]

I've read through several posts on how to create an installation package for distribution. I've done it and it's a great way to distribute an application. However I want my cake and eat it to.

Going through the Genie I don't see the option to create a desktop icon unless you include the application files.

I'm installing this application on several computers a day and have to manually create the access icon each time. That means pointing to the BMP's the ICO's rewriting the display message etc...

If I understand correctly, when I use the Genie with the icon builder I have to include the application files, that will overwrite the exisitng data files on the server, so I can't do that.

Is it possible to create a installation package setup file to install the runtime version and an icon on the desktop that will point to the folder which starts the application files without overwriting them.

In other words:

1. Install Alpha Runtime to a designated folder using the method as set out by the Genie, (destination, background, message, icon etc...)
2. Create a custom icon on the desktop that starts Alpha and points to the server destination which opens the files on the server only while running the runtime executable locally

[Keith Hubert]

Re: Installation Package with custom icon

Hi Chuck,

I think what you are asking is very interesting as the data is to go on the server and the Runtime on each client machine.

Do a search for Bootstrap on the forum and the Help files.

The installer does not seem to allow you to do that repeatedly without over writing the data files. I think the Bootstrap route would help, which would still mean two separate installers, unless I have got that wrong, in which case I stand to be corrected.

[Chuck Bytes]

Re: Installation Package with custom icon

I did find more interesting reading on Bootstrap. That was a good reference.

I'm also noticing a lot of text referring to errors, so I'm reluctant to jump in with both feet however in my case time is of the essence .

I need to have users hundreds of miles away logging in updating files on a daily basis in places where internet connections are not the most optimal. Increasing speed by dimishing the amount of information required to be transmitted would be a great help.

I figure with Shadow, it will be faster and more efficient to send just data updates rather than painting screens.

My only concern here is the file locking mechanizum. I didn�t read anything about how the bootstrap interfaces with live data.

In my case, users will be accessing the same record to update different portions (fields)�.
With the current configuration, Alpha return an alert if two users are accessing the same record simultaneously. Will that still occur with a shadow configuration.

If I understood correctly, data is virtual on the users machine until such time as it is transmitted to the server. I think this is done at the end of several entries when the user is exiting the application or at such time as designated up front when shadow is configured. EG: every 5 min...

This is a good subject as my database will be accessed by close to 70 people simultaneously nationally and that may double before the end of the year, so I HAVE to know what I�m doing in this case.

I would not normally make this kind of request, but I have to get on a plane next week to set up remote users. I'm flying by the seat of my pants here.

Is there a subject matter expert on this forum regarding shadowing who might be able to comment further on this. I'm in the process of ordering manuals from Alpha but from a few posts I've read, there isn't much text on the subject.

(Ah hell, Bill Gates did it when he introduced the mouse from Xerox and DOS to Steve Jobs. It was all a pipedram until someone believed in it)

[Clunes]

Re: Installation Package with custom icon

The installer should really only be needed for the first time install. After that it should be a matter of sending updates. Eg zipfiles with modifications only less data. If you have modified a table then there isa more complex need as this will require the data to be updated as well.

I recommend you install runtime files in their preferred location eg: C:\program files\alpha10 runtime and all other files in a seperate directory. Now if you send update runtime it will install to the default. Reduce user queries on this.

Before packaging create a desktop icon. This will create a file in the data directory called "somenting.control" where something = db file name. Take a look a icon properties on the desktop and you will see the full startup line.

What I do now is ensure that file is added to the install package as well as the icon and the startup splash. Before I do put a copy in the runtime directory. I also open it in notepad to view the settings. You will see a line for each action like title, icon and splash. If this file is not in the runtime directory then the full path name to splash and icon must be used. If it is in the runtime directory then no path is required.

The key reasons for doing it like the above is that it manages the user better. The user can install the datafiles anywhere they like but with the icon pointing to the runtime directory in a fixed location. This improves the potential for the shortcut to do the correct thing the first time.

I actually now use a third party installer as this allows me to use variables in the install path to fully over come the issues with users and installing

[CALocklin]

Re: Installation Package with custom icon

(I started this many hours ago and got interrupted so I hope it's still relevant.)

I prefer the easy way - one that costs more in $$ and less in time - use a 3rd party installer.

And some people are even using free 3rd party apps and are very happy with them. I'm sure a search would turn up a number of threads on the subject. Here's one that mentions a few and Install Creator Pro seems to be one of the better free ones. I'm sure there are many other good ones as well but you may not find 'everything' in a free version.

In my case, I build an install routine with Astrum and save the definition. That definition includes "Never Overwrite" on all the data files. I can now re-install at any time and not worry about overwriting data. It also allows me to register the A5Controls.dll, A5ContextEval.dll and the CodeJockxxx.ocx files so I can install the runtime along with the application. And, since the definition file is saved, all icons, shortcuts, registry entries, registry retrievals, etc. are stored with it so I don't have to re-define anything when I release an update. All I do is open Astrum, find the definition file for my app, update version info (number and readme file) if desired, and press the "build installation package" button.

Many on this forum use Astrum (probably my fault - I think I was the first to recommend it) which costs a few $$ but I think everyone using it likes it.

[CALocklin]

Re: Installation Package with custom icon

Yep. I started that last post before post #3 so it's a bit late.

I need to have users hundreds of miles away logging in updating files on a daily basis in places where internet connections are not the most optimal. Increasing speed by dimishing the amount of information required to be transmitted would be a great help.

I figure with Shadow, it will be faster and more efficient to send just data updates rather than painting screens.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. How are the users logging in? Terminal Server? VPN? Other remote access program? No matter which of those methods are used, I don't think shadowing will have anything to do with the internet speed. I could be wrong about it on a VPN connection but I don't think so.

In my case, users will be accessing the same record to update different portions (fields)….
With the current configuration, Alpha return an alert if two users are accessing the same record simultaneously. Will that still occur with a shadow configuration.

Yep! Two users cannot edit the same record at the same time. They can both read it at the same time and one person can edit while 25 others are looking at it but only one person at a time can make changes. (Can anyone tell my how it would make sense for two or more people to be making changes to one record simultaneously? If one person wants to change the name from Smith to Jones and the other wants to change it from Smith to Hamilton, does it come out JHoanmeislton? Even client/server doesn't actually allow simultaneous changes to the original record.)

The only way around this that I know of would be to use xdialogs with variables or a form that only has variables, read the field values into the variables, let each user change only those items s/he is allowed to edit (i.e., a special xdialog/form for each type of user), then let xbasic control the saving of that data to the record so one 'update' can finish before the next one is posted. This is not difficult but it will probably be time consuming to set up.

If I understood correctly, data is virtual on the users machine until such time as it is transmitted to the server. I think this is done at the end of several entries when the user is exiting the application or at such time as designated up front when shadow is configured. EG: every 5 min...

You did not understand that correctly at all. As soon as the user editing the record clicks save or moves to a different record, the changes are saved to the server. There is never any data saved on the hard drive of a shadowed table and there is no 'delay' before saving the data. (I'm sure there is a millisecond or two to get the data to the server but there is no built-in, intentional delay before saving it.)

This is a good subject as my database will be accessed by close to 70 people simultaneously nationally and that may double before the end of the year, so I HAVE to know what I’m doing in this case.

This statement worries me. You say "nationally" - is this a desktop application or a web app? "70 people nationally" sounds like it might be an ideal situation for a web app. If it's a desktop app, how will it be accessed by so many people "nationally"? I think this would even be pretty big for a terminal server. This could be a key factor in judging how well your app will work.

[Chuck Bytes]

Re: Installation Package with custom icon

Ok, so thanks for the insight, that certainly cleared up a lot of misunderstandings. The way the Shadowing process read in the genie, made me think that there is a virtual hold on data until it is either intentionally saved or exiting the program.

So to answer your query of not understanding why two or more people would make changes to a single record.

Let me use this analogy: There are several vendors that work on different aspects of constructing a home. The Plummer, Electrician, Carpenter, etc... The project manager wants to see the status of each individuals work as it happens in real time. So each of the vendors goes in 3-4 times daily and updates their progress.

1. Pipes to bathroom laid
2. Wires for dryer in place
3. Beams for roof installed
The build of a telecommunications network works along the same lines, only there are 15-20 vendors inputting information each day.

All this is presented in a tabbed format for the end user to view. Now I know what you're going to say (in hind sight I should have done this) Why not build a table for each vendor and bring it together in a set.

Well, I didn't know the business when it started and as I had quoted in a previous posting (somewhere) if I could do this again, I'd do it in a totally different way.
Hey, live and learn right!

As for Desktop vs Web. that's another story. Until a month ago, this was a stand alone operation out of one office. All of a sudden, they're opening another office in another province which I predict may end up being 10 provinces by the end of this whole thing. Today they are talking about overseas access from China and France.

The way we currently access remotely is using a program called Softether. It's a virtual VPN access. The remote user maps his/her drive to the letter S and runs the RT version from their machine accessing the server with the master database.

On a side note.....this was not requested by the customer, I just went ahead and started building it because these clowns thought they could run a company through exchanging data on excel spreadsheets. So with that comment alone, I hope you can appreciate the mentality I'm challenged with.

After presenting them with this prototype application, they were overwhelmed with it's simplicity, efficiency and outstanding reporting capabilities. I've become a demi-god of databases and I'm sure I can't hold a candle to most guys on this forum, hell, I haven't looked at a database since 1998. I wouldn't know the first thing about web database development.

I will say this, Alpha is a kickass system, I knew that back in A4 DOS days and I surprised myself how much information I've retained and been able to implement into this new GUI environment.

I understand that criticism is going to come my way, I'm the first to tear apart what I've created and want to rebuild it. The fact that I did this in my spare time and have to now evolve it into a national system (which means I need programmers) I don't have the time to rebuild, only to learn and improve my methods. So far she's been very stable and other than a few corrections here and there, I'm confident in my abilities to make what they want, "like pulling a rabbit out of my hat".

Now its time to take a serious look at making it better and faster. Especially over the internet. The folks on this forum have really been my best source of information since I don't even have an instruction manual on how to use this program. Not even sure one will really help.

Like my forum friend Mike Christensen and I once discussed. It's like a puzzle, but you don't see the picture of what you're putting together until it's finished. Even then, it's never finished, is it.


Sorry for the rant, too much coffee.

[CALocklin]

Re: Installation Package with custom icon

Well, I didn't know the business when it started and as I had quoted in a previous posting (somewhere) if I could do this again, I'd do it in a totally different way.
Hey, live and learn right!

As for Desktop vs Web. that's another story. Until a month ago, this was a stand alone operation out of one office. All of a sudden, they're opening another office in another province which I predict may end up being 10 provinces by the end of this whole thing. Today they are talking about overseas access from China and France.

What? Never heard of such craziness!

(Yeah, we've all been there. I wasn't trying to criticize as much as I was worried about what issues you might run into.)

If you haven't already, now might be a good time to let them know that there may be limits to what can be done as more and more people come on-line with it. The more users there are, the more likely the need for updates and improvements. I can pretty much guarantee that the more users you have, the more change requests you will have also.

[martinwcole]

Re: Installation Package with custom icon

Obviously, if you were starting from scratch, a web app would be the way to go. However, if you are in too deep, and/or they might not want to have a developer write the app for the web due to the expense, I would take a completely different approach.

If the runtime is on the client's workstation, then there is a LOT of data that has to flow back and forth accross the connection, and if you shadow it, refreshes will take forever. (Not to mention there will be an enormous drain on the bandwidth and the server processors at the source!!) And given that apps like this grow and grow and grow and the dbfs get bigger and bigger and bigger, thus increasing the quantity of data to send back and forth, the performace would decrease greatly.

I would use a combination of Terminal Server and Citrix. Dan Blank and Al Bucholtz wrote a system for Costco where they had 150 to 175 concurrent users simultaneously entering orders, etc. from remote locations accross at least the US. As I recall, they put about 15 users per sub_server, and users would come in to the cluster via Citrix, and from the sub_servers to the main server via T/S (or maybe the opposite.)

Anyway, with this approach, the client has nothing but an icon on their desktop making the connection, and there is a single application on the main server. This would be many many many many times faster and more reliable than your current approach as I understand it.

The big expense would be the purchase of the servers and setting them up to auto manage the cluster. But since this is a national company, the cost would be trivial compared with the returned performance and reliability.

I currently have a client with 30 remote sites (hospitals, etc.) where techs logon and enter their charges, etc. It is run using T/S. Currently we only have one server as there are never more than 15 concurrent users. It's performace is virtually the same as running it as a single user desktop stand-a-lone system.

If you are interested in this approach, email me and I will send you an invitation and show you a real live demo.

[Chuck Bytes]

Re: Installation Package with custom icon

"I currently have a client with 30 remote sites (hospitals, etc.) where techs logon and enter their charges, etc. It is run using T/S. Currently we only have one server as there are never more than 15 concurrent users. It's performace is virtually the same as running it as a single user desktop stand-a-lone system.

If you are interested in this approach, email me and I will send you an invitation and show you a real live demo"

That would be a good starting approach. Before Introduce such an idea, I'd be interestd in seeing that demo so I can put together a business plan.

Really tied up right now with multiple tasks over the next week, but I'm going to find time to contact you and arrange that demo....thanks