Force Install

[mritter]

In talking with oneless I have come across an issue with "Force installation on exit" option. The description text says it will only force on exit when checked. So if it is unchecked, anything that should be forced could be unchecked before hitting Begin Install and skipped.

So, I could just update the text to say:

Force installation on install or exit [ ] Set force install of applications on Begin Install or Exit.

-or-

Force installation on install [ ] Set force install of applications on Begin Install.

Force installation on exit [ ] Set force install of applications on Exit.

Two options would give you more flexability. It would also give you a more consitant Exit if you only check the first option. But then again, it defeats the purpose of force.

Check only the first option, only forces when hit Install.

Check only the second, only forces when hit Exit.

Check both, always forces.

Post your opinions here.

Edited June 24, 2006 by mritter

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Forced install should be forced. Period

I agree with having options on it though.

[oneless]

Forced install should be forced. Period

of course. isnt this the name : forced ?

i said only that the behaviour of up_to_WPI4.3.8beta2 (last i used before 5.0beta1) is different

from wpi5.x

force on exit checked, do not make me happy. so i dont use it .

with force on exit UNchecked

- wpi_up_to_438, on begin install execute all forced, on exit do not execute forced

- wpi_5.x , on begin install DO NOT execute forced, on exit do not execute forced

i dont know if the boolean was right there in 4.3.8 or now in 5.x

but i used it in 4.3.8, with proper numbers ordr[pn] in config.js,

i had more than one execute_after. this is all. for me just a vanished (used) feature.

i reconfigured my config.js and i can live with a single execute_after.

thats all.

now happy can make me (an who know , maybe others ..!)

an execute_before_before and an execute_after_after

(an execute_before_before executed before even wpi.hta kernel is started

an execute_after_after executed after wpi.hta/mshta.exe is completly ended )

because i still need to use for that a wpi.cmd.

I agree with having options on it though.

always more options , more flexibility.

but like i said , i can live without THIS option

anyway , for my configuration now this isnt a priority .

other opinions ...??