Re: installation routines for networks
From: DS (DS_at_btinternet.com)
Date: 10/20/04
- Next message: Louis la Brocante: "Re: Precise accounting of Win2000 Pro inbound connections"
- Previous message: LucyMR: "Non-existant computers still pingable"
- In reply to: DS: "Re: installation routines for networks"
- Next in thread: Phillip Windell: "Re: installation routines for networks"
- Reply: Phillip Windell: "Re: installation routines for networks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:30:53 +0100
Hi
I have been installing the database with a /silent switch so that
installation has less steps where people might mess it up! The app is aimed
at schools and to be honest some school network people are not that good.
The server part in this instance is just the database engine and the
database itself. The client apps communicate via tcp/ip with the database.
The app needs to be able to run on standalone pc's too, so I'm not sure
whether a 2 part app would be wise. I'm trying to keep the size and versions
to a minimum to allow it to be easily sent via mail on small business card
cds to attract customers.
Thanks
D
"DS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a..n.e.t> wrote in message
news:Xns9587BB1453107idispcom@216.196.97.142...
> Just a couple of questions, in-line.....
>
>
> "DS" <DS@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:cl2j9m$mog$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I am in the process of finishing the development of a client server
> > database application that uses Firebird. I would like to try and make
> > the installation as 'pain free' and easy as possible for the network
> > engineers who have to install it.
> >
> > With that in mind I would like to ask if this is reasonable:
> >
> > On the server:
> > 1) In my installation routine's instructions I tell the users/network
> > manager to install the database for my app, 'myDatabase' to a NON
> > mapped drive.
> > 2) make my applications folder shared, but do not change its share
> > name. 3) Allow Firebird database sever to install to its default
> > position on c: drive
>
> Some people are extremely anal about installation's on the computer's
> they have to administer/take care of. I personally almost NEVER install
> to any application's default install location. I'm not familiar with the
> Firebird database server, but I wouldn't give those instruction's to
> anyone unless the package absolutely won't work installed any other way.
>
> Is there any other particular reason for this ?
>
> >
> > On the client machines:
> > 1) Get my app's client installation routine to prompt the
> > users/network manager for the tcp/ip connection string for mydatabase
> > and save it to a local ini file. Connection string is in the format:
> > serverName:driveLetter:\folderName\
> > 2) write my app so that it reads the ini file for the connection
> > string 3) write a routine that creates a unc path from the tcp/ip
> > connection string. (This is the bit I am really unsure of. If I have
> > told said to make the database folder shared and NOT change the name,
> > is there likely to be any problems with simply adding '\\' at the
> > beginning and removing ':driveLetter:' ie
> > serverName:driveLetter:\applicationFolder\ will become:
> > \\serverName\shareName\ as applicationFolder will be the same as
> > shareName.) 4) write my app so it checks to see if it is registered by
> > reading from the ini file using the constructed UNC path
> >
> > This final 2 steps would allow my software to be registered once,
> > rather than separately on each client machine.
>
> I must be somewhat confused, originally, I thought it was a 2 part app. A
> server part (using the Firebird database engine) and client app, which
> when started, communicates with your server program (which accesses the
> Firebird database engine). Now I'm not to sure.
>
> The response here would have been that there's really no need for
> 'registering' the client, if there is a seperate server app. Without the
> server app, the client's have noone to talk to. The server app itself
> could be 'registered', then only allow so many connections to itself,
> based on a 'site' license, or only x amount of simultaneously connected
> users. But, like I said, I may have my lines crossed.
>
> Regards,
>
> DanS
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks for any help given on this, I'm new to programming for
> > networks!
> >
> > D
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
- Next message: Louis la Brocante: "Re: Precise accounting of Win2000 Pro inbound connections"
- Previous message: LucyMR: "Non-existant computers still pingable"
- In reply to: DS: "Re: installation routines for networks"
- Next in thread: Phillip Windell: "Re: installation routines for networks"
- Reply: Phillip Windell: "Re: installation routines for networks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|