What is ClickOne?

[Tee]

Hi,

Just curious what is clickone? Is it the same as Installshield?

Been follow the following instructions and it seems to create an
installation exe for me which is good but how come it doesn't include the
..net framework as part of the installation exe too? if i was giving this exe
to a friend or a client i am sure they can't run the application after the
installed. If the clickone is the same as installshield how do i go about
to include the .net framework as part of the installation exe.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...ey(VS.80).aspx

Thanks

[=?Utf-8?B?Um9iS2lubmV5MQ==?=]

Hello Tee,

We use ClickOnce on one of our applications. The way we did it is to use
the MageUI tool and place manifests on our web server.

To clarify, I just compile my C# application as usual. Then I go into the
BIN\Release folder and gather the exe and any extra .dll's that are needed
and place them into a folder on our release computer. We then run MageUI and
create a couple of manifests (Application Manifest, then Deployment Manifest)
and place the entire folder out in a specified web directory.

The full explanation is rather long and there is online help for these
specific steps.

The skinny of it is that you do not have to use and installer -- just MageUI
to create and sign your manifests. Oh, and you might want to consider
Obfusticating your exe file if you don't want people to be able to decompile
it :~}

Hope this helps a little bit.

Rob

"Tee" wrote:

Hi,

Just curious what is clickone? Is it the same as Installshield?

Been follow the following instructions and it seems to create an
installation exe for me which is good but how come it doesn't include the
..net framework as part of the installation exe too? if i was giving this exe
to a friend or a client i am sure they can't run the application after the
installed. If the clickone is the same as installshield how do i go about
to include the .net framework as part of the installation exe.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...ey(VS.80).aspx

Thanks

[Tee]

Hi Rob,

does MageUI handle the distribution of .NET framework the reason because my
application use quite a bit of .net components. Really deep down what i
really want is tell the installer

1. here is my .net project (solutions *.sln)
2. find all references dll and ocx
3. only include .net component that my app use with the installation exe
4. build a single installation exe
5. done.

Is there any technology out there.

PS. Obfusticating thing is a bit too expensive for me right now
"RobKinney1 " <Ro********@dis cussions.micros oft.comwrote in message
news:2F******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

Hello Tee,

We use ClickOnce on one of our applications. The way we did it is to use
the MageUI tool and place manifests on our web server.

To clarify, I just compile my C# application as usual. Then I go into the
BIN\Release folder and gather the exe and any extra .dll's that are needed
and place them into a folder on our release computer. We then run MageUI
and
create a couple of manifests (Application Manifest, then Deployment
Manifest)
and place the entire folder out in a specified web directory.

The full explanation is rather long and there is online help for these
specific steps.

The skinny of it is that you do not have to use and installer -- just
MageUI
to create and sign your manifests. Oh, and you might want to consider
Obfusticating your exe file if you don't want people to be able to
decompile
it :~}

Hope this helps a little bit.

Rob

"Tee" wrote:

>Hi,

Just curious what is clickone? Is it the same as Installshield?

Been follow the following instructions and it seems to create an
installation exe for me which is good but how come it doesn't include the
..net framework as part of the installation exe too? if i was giving this
exe
to a friend or a client i am sure they can't run the application after
the
installed. If the clickone is the same as installshield how do i go
about
to include the .net framework as part of the installation exe.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...ey(VS.80).aspx

Thanks

[Bruce Wood]

On Jan 31, 5:58 pm, "Tee" <khmer_lov...@y ahoo.comwrote:

Hi Rob,

does MageUI handle the distribution of .NET framework the reason because my
application use quite a bit of .net components. Really deep down what i
really want is tell the installer

1. here is my .net project (solutions *.sln)
2. find all references dll and ocx
3. only include .net component that my app use with the installation exe
4. build a single installation exe
5. done.

Keep in mind that the .NET Framework is installed on all Windows
machines worldwide as part of Microsoft's upgrades / hotfixes on the
Web. Very, very few machines will not have the Framework installed.
It's pretty safe to assume that it's on your target machine, although
it may not be safe to assume that version 2.0 is there (the machine
might still be on 1.1.)

In order to use ClickOnce, you need an IIS server. ClickOnce is
basically a Web service that allows you to install your application
automatically when the user clicks on a link on a Web page (for
example), and check for upgrades every time the application runs. You
do, however, require an IIS server in order to handle the requests.

Is there any technology out there.

Yes, there are products that will bundle your .NET app together with
selected Framework components into a single .exe for distribution. The
names escape me at the moment. However, realize that this is probably
overkill: as I said, it will be very, very rare to encounter a Windows
PC that doesn't have at least Framework 1.1 already on it.

If you have Visual Studio, you might find it easier to simply create a
Deployment project in VS. It will package all of your code into
an .msm file that will automatically extract itself and install on a
target machine. I believe that you can also instruct VS to include the
Framework itself as part of the install although, as I said, I
consider that overkill.

PS. Obfusticating thing is a bit too expensive for me right now

I believe that there are free obfuscators out there... anyone else
know of one?

[Laurent Bugnion [MVP]]

Hi,

Bruce Wood wrote:

On Jan 31, 5:58 pm, "Tee" <khmer_lov...@y ahoo.comwrote:

>Hi Rob,

does MageUI handle the distribution of .NET framework the reason because my
application use quite a bit of .net components. Really deep down what i
really want is tell the installer

1. here is my .net project (solutions *.sln)
2. find all references dll and ocx
3. only include .net component that my app use with the installation exe
4. build a single installation exe
5. done.

Keep in mind that the .NET Framework is installed on all Windows
machines worldwide as part of Microsoft's upgrades / hotfixes on the
Web. Very, very few machines will not have the Framework installed.
It's pretty safe to assume that it's on your target machine, although
it may not be safe to assume that version 2.0 is there (the machine
might still be on 1.1.)

ClickOnce allows to define prerequisites. The easiest way to create a
ClickOnce install file is to use Visual Studio "Publish" menu (under
"Build"). You can configure it using the project properties (Tab
"Publish", then "Prerequisites" .

This way is nice, because the prerequisites are not added to your own
installation package, but if they are missing, they can be downloaded
from the vendor (i.e. Microsoft for the .NET runtime).

ClickOnce has disadvantages over MSI: This is a per-user installation
(not per machine), and also you don't have access to the registry,
etc... IMHO it's not intended as a replacement for MSI, rather a
complement for small application.

In order to use ClickOnce, you need an IIS server. ClickOnce is
basically a Web service that allows you to install your application
automatically when the user clicks on a link on a Web page (for
example), and check for upgrades every time the application runs. You
do, however, require an IIS server in order to handle the requests.

>Is there any technology out there.

Yes, there are products that will bundle your .NET app together with
selected Framework components into a single .exe for distribution. The
names escape me at the moment. However, realize that this is probably
overkill: as I said, it will be very, very rare to encounter a Windows
PC that doesn't have at least Framework 1.1 already on it.

One product I know of is this one:
https://thinstall.com/solutions/net_virtual.php

However I never tried it (as you said, one can accept that the runtime
is available, period) and it's very expensive (around 5000 USD + 39USD
per client).

If you have Visual Studio, you might find it easier to simply create a
Deployment project in VS. It will package all of your code into
an .msm file that will automatically extract itself and install on a
target machine. I believe that you can also instruct VS to include the
Framework itself as part of the install although, as I said, I
consider that overkill.

>PS. Obfusticating thing is a bit too expensive for me right now

I believe that there are free obfuscators out there... anyone else
know of one?

Dotfuscator community edition comes with Visual Studio .NET 2005. That
said, the value of obfuscating code is really questionable IMHO. If
someone wants to steal your code, they will be able to do it
(obfuscating will make the process slower, but it will not prevent it).
For most developers, I believe that openly publishing the source code is
the best way to go. I am fully aware of the problems that this poses for
a commercial company, though. I don't think that there is a satisfying
answer to this problem.

HTH,
Laurent
--
Laurent Bugnion [MVP ASP.NET]
Software engineering: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
PhotoAlbum: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch/pictures
Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch

[PokerMan]

"For most developers, I believe that openly publishing the source code is
the best way to go"

I think this is absurd! A comparison is, why bother locking your house when
you go out? If they want to get in they will, why bother locking your car?
They'll just smash a window and so on. Just because they can and undoubtebly
would succeed if they really wanted to, making it harder lowers the chance
of your code being ripped. If you have to spend hours, days, weekes maybe to
crack code how many will truly bother if the end result is they can make
their own hacked version of say msn? On top of this obfuscating the code
itself and having obfuscated variable names and method names etc, really
will make deciphering the code a huge pain. Many may just give up in a very
complex app. To say just make it open source is rediculous.

[PokerMan]

I should also add:

"You can configure it using the project properties (Tab
"Publish", then "Prerequisites" .

This way is nice, because the prerequisites are not added to your own
installation package, but if they are missing, they can be downloaded
from the vendor (i.e. Microsoft for the .NET runtime)."

This way is nice if you only have one prerequisite, but what about when you
have 2,3,4 etc prerequisites? Not so nice now is it. Your user has to click
one, then the next then the next etc. What woul dbe nice would be if you
could assign prerequisites BUT ClickOnce check user machine for the
prerequisite, if they dont have it, it installs them from vendor site or
some other location until all are in and then runs as usual. Benefit of
multiple install packs so not one big one for users that have pre-req, and
it would be smart. This is my biggest gripe with Click once.

[Laurent Bugnion [MVP]]

Hi,

PokerMan wrote:

"For most developers, I believe that openly publishing the source code is
the best way to go"

I think this is absurd! A comparison is, why bother locking your house when
you go out?

I stand by my point, which was: .NET is an open house anyway.
Obfuscators are not efficient enough to protect code. If it's OK for
you, then you do have my blessing :-)

If they want to get in they will, why bother locking your car?

They'll just smash a window and so on. Just because they can and undoubtebly
would succeed if they really wanted to, making it harder lowers the chance
of your code being ripped. If you have to spend hours, days, weekes maybe to
crack code how many will truly bother if the end result is they can make
their own hacked version of say msn? On top of this obfuscating the code
itself and having obfuscated variable names and method names etc, really
will make deciphering the code a huge pain.

Not so much. What has been obfuscated can be de-obfuscated. There are
deobfuscatores out there. My opinion after careful consideration is that
obfuscating the code only makes hackers want to crack it even more.

Many may just give up in a very
complex app. To say just make it open source is rediculous.

You're entitled to your opinions as I am to mine. Saying it's ridiculous
is a bit extreme, don't you think?

HTH,
Laurent
--
Laurent Bugnion [MVP ASP.NET]
Software engineering: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
PhotoAlbum: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch/pictures
Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch

[Laurent Bugnion [MVP]]

Hi,

PokerMan wrote:

I should also add:

"You can configure it using the project properties (Tab
"Publish", then "Prerequisites" .

This way is nice, because the prerequisites are not added to your own
installation package, but if they are missing, they can be downloaded
from the vendor (i.e. Microsoft for the .NET runtime)."

This way is nice if you only have one prerequisite, but what about when you
have 2,3,4 etc prerequisites? Not so nice now is it. Your user has to click
one, then the next then the next etc. What woul dbe nice would be if you
could assign prerequisites BUT ClickOnce check user machine for the
prerequisite, if they dont have it, it installs them from vendor site or
some other location until all are in and then runs as usual.

I am sorry, I reread this sentence 5 times and still don't understand
what you mean. Maybe you should reformulate.

Benefit of

multiple install packs so not one big one for users that have pre-req, and
it would be smart. This is my biggest gripe with Click once.

Greetings,
Laurent
--
Laurent Bugnion [MVP ASP.NET]
Software engineering: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
PhotoAlbum: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch/pictures
Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch

[PokerMan]

What don't you understand? I'll simplify it for ya ;)

as it stands click once does this:

1) offers a link to vendor site of pre-requisite if user needs it
2) user clicks link, downloads requirement
3) user installs programme via click once

So what if you have, 2,3,4 or more prerequisites, then this happens

1) click once offers lots of links to pre-requisites
2) user clicks first and installs
3) now user clicks next one and installs
4) now user clicks yet another one and installs and so on
5) not clicks click once and install the app

Theoretically there is nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately it doesn't
take into account peoples expectation to want a one click install and second
people get impatient. So unless click once is being used for a company on
their employees where a sys admin does the initial install or they are sent
specific instructions and have to download so will do the steps it becomes a
hurdle. As regular users cant be bothered to download. There is more chance
of a member of public downloading a 100MB file walking off and having his
tea than clicking 3 downloads to get one programme. They simply don't
bother.

So my final point was click one woul dbe better if it did this:

1) User clicks install (no other options given)
2) Click once has been told the pre-requisites and now checks them on client
machine
3) If the client doesnt have a pre-req, click once instatiates the download
from vendor site
4) Once all pre-reqs done, it installs the app itself as it would usually

So client only sees one install button.

Make sense now?

"Laurent Bugnion [MVP]" <ga*********@bl uewin.chwrote in message
news:Oj******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP02.phx.gbl...

Hi,

PokerMan wrote:

>I should also add:

"You can configure it using the project properties (Tab
"Publish", then "Prerequisites" .

This way is nice, because the prerequisites are not added to your own
installation package, but if they are missing, they can be downloaded
from the vendor (i.e. Microsoft for the .NET runtime)."

This way is nice if you only have one prerequisite, but what about when
you have 2,3,4 etc prerequisites? Not so nice now is it. Your user has to
click one, then the next then the next etc. What woul dbe nice would be
if you could assign prerequisites BUT ClickOnce check user machine for
the prerequisite, if they dont have it, it installs them from vendor site
or some other location until all are in and then runs as usual.

I am sorry, I reread this sentence 5 times and still don't understand what
you mean. Maybe you should reformulate.

Benefit of

>multiple install packs so not one big one for users that have pre-req,
and it would be smart. This is my biggest gripe with Click once.

Greetings,
Laurent
--
Laurent Bugnion [MVP ASP.NET]
Software engineering: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
PhotoAlbum: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch/pictures
Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch