World: r3wp

Pekr, that won't work with windows 7

... I expect that when you lauch .exe on system where REBOL is not 
yet installed, the installation process will run, right?

no?

That is the portable app method, which can't set file associations.

Nope ...

Hmm, installers, default dirs, etc., that's kind of deep topic :-)

Which I've already thought through. I've written installers for R2 
before and other apps.

To get altme to run from the my c:\altme directory, I either have 
to run as admin, or, I have to write enable myself on the directory

Right. That's why portable apps are usually run from USB keys with 
FAT filesystems.

In the long run I would prefer to make the installer configurable 
and encappable, but for now a View-specific one will do.

So, rebol has to go to <program files>\rebol ?  And it has to write 
in user documents somewhere?

Graham - exactly .... but - I hate that model ...

and when you start a rebol console .. you end up deep in user documents 
somewhere ...

there might be even 3 paths - rebol app (program files), rebol cache 
(user profile .... bla bla \roaming\rebol), rebol data user profile\documents\rebol 
...

Pekr, it's required for secure multi-user use on Windows. Hating 
it won't change that. No flame wars please - we don't have the time.

most of the time, I can guarantee you, that users feel lost, once 
they are supposed to navigate to their docs in file-manager ...

File placement is easy, and mostly handled by 2.6.3 - the real trick 
is registry usage.

BrianH - I am fine with whatever crap windows require. I have my 
most needed stuff on C:, in !mp3, !REBOL, !Foto etc. dirs. I run 
as an admin, so I don't care ...

So, if a program that is being installed needs Rebol ... where should 
it look?

Right. File placement is a matter of chosing the default folders 
of the installer, as it does now. You can change those choices.

Python seems to install to c:\python2n\

As in almost all cases, Python is a bad example.

BrianH: so where can users (not admin) safely put his rebol scripts, 
so that rebol executalbe can write and read from such a directory? 
We can't do it in program files, but can we do in somewhere on C:\REBOL?

The trick is registry usage. The folder locations can be looked up 
in the registry.at runtime, as long as those registry settings are 
in the right location of the registry. I'll have those exact locations 
Tuesday evening.

... or only user profile dirs is the right placement?

c:\rebol is out ... unless you write enable

d:\rebol is fine though :)

Pekr, it's not abot where the user can pt their user scripts, it's 
about the desktop files and such. File associations manage the user 
script issue.

User scripts can go wherever you like.

will the installer be written in rebol?

Or, will you use a standard installer script ?

It is already.

It's in the SDK source.

And how then will it cope with Windows 64?

32 bit programs can't write to the windows 64 bit registry

BrianH - but when user script is run, REBOL changes current dir to 
that of the script placement, no? And the script might require to 
create some file at that destination. I know that temp files will 
go to some deep cache dir, but what if script wants to write to the 
dir of the script placement?

It will go in the WOW64 "Program Files (x86)" directory.

Pekr, that is a runtime issue, not affected by the installer at all.

For R2, all that matters for install is the View desktop and file 
associations.

If you have the installer all sorted out .. we should move on to 
something else!

yes, we should all move onto R3 :-)

I can only SAY WOOOW on this release, I am still a strong R2 user 
and this is much more than appreciated!

Yup Graham. For me that should be a little sleep - I have to wake 
up again in 2 hours to go to a customer site. Pekr, stay on topic 
:)

Graham: thanks a lot for gmail related code, this was big hinge in 
some stuff I was planning

Janko, whooo, yay!

Brian, I would like to see prot-http.r extended ... since googledoc, 
and amazon are big topics for some of us

I wrote some changes .. they just need to be optimized by someone.

By the way, the reason we can consider getting the installer in this 
release at all is because the hard part has already been done. If 
any of the rest of you have tested patches that don't break anything, 
get in touch. If they don't make it into 2.7.7, they might make it 
into 2.7.8 next month :)

BrianH: you have access to sources? Who can do native changes? Only 
Carl? Because if so, I hope there is not much of changes. I wish 
Carl finish R3, not to spend much time on further R2 enhancements 
in native code ....

Here's my patches to http-prot.r .. http://rebol.wik.is/Protocols/Http

I have used it for a while and they do not break anything AFAIK ...