World: r3wp

Like Java.

Okay I see. So, REBOL 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 autoreplace, but REBOL 3.0 
installs side-by-side?

A minor security "fix" can also break older code.

But better done of course.

And then we promise not to break old code with the auto-updating?

Veerry interesting. Not a bad idea. Probably can do it.

I don't believe any of you. Why not let the user decide what works 
for him ?

Security fixes should only break insecure code. Otherwise they are 
API modifications.

Only the user knows when it's working and when not.  Well, as I said, 
I don't believe any of you to stick to that 100%. It's an admirable 
goal, obviously.

Well here's a side-by-side problem scenario. Grandpa doesn't know 
anything about anything, other than how to check his e-mail. He comes 
to web site 1 which auto-installs (with his permission) REBOL 1.3.2. 
Then he goes to web site 2, which needs REBOL 3.0, and it auto-installs 
side-by-side. Then he comes to a third site, which tells him it requires 
the REBOL/Plugin. How does he know which plugin it needs?

Actually, Java isn't a good example. Their updater sucks. Better 
example, like .NET.

Further, let's say he decides to clean out his computer. If he removes 
REBOL 1.3.2, seeing that it is an "old" version, he will inveitably 
break the web sites that rely on 1.3.2.

Yes, but he must take responsibility for his own actions there.

How can you take responsibility for an automatic updater's actions 
?

Sure, I understand that makes sense for developers, but I can see 
real confusion. Since when does a web site tell you that it requires 
Flash version 3.0? All Flash scripts run in the latest version of 
Flash, so if you have Flash 8, you're all set on any Flash web site 
(I think...someone correct me if I'm wrong).

The plugin should look at parameters to see which version is needed 
(or the Needs header) and load the latest in the applicable line. 
If it is not installed, it should offer to install it.

Remember, we have to think about Grandma Sally who just figured out 
how to use Internet Explorer. If she gets frustrated with this thing 
called "REBOL", we're outta market share. It's got to be easy for 
even her.

Rebol 3 is not going to run Rebol 2 stuff, so we're not like Flash 
straight away.

Since REBOL is so small, parallel installs make more sense than compatibility 
modes. This isn't Perl or Java you know.

My plan above is easy to implement for now. It's good for us developers 
in the near term.  Later we can add a complex auto-update scheme 
which can be manually switched on by a right-click menu.

Hmm. Interesting. I need to think about that one.

Right now, the plugin is linked to its version of viewdll. It can't 
really "choose" which viewdll to load.

Especially since, with a new release,  we may need new features in 
the plugin *itself*, and not just in viewdll.

That's a complicated issue.

I like the API being able to wrap a one dll from each generation, 
and then update that dll for security fixes.

Anton, your side-by-side idea is a good one. The problem is that 
I'm not sure it's automatic enough the average user.

The plugin itself can handle the automatic updates, or call an updater 
that can handle plugin updates too.

Our original thinking with the plugin was as follows: Web site is 
responsible for everything. If web site requires new version of plugin, 
it specifies a new CLSID and forces the user to download it. The 
problem is, then you have 5 "REBOL/Plugin" objects in Downloaded 
Program FIles. Thoughts on that approach?

It's a simple "proto-form", good for development while we think and 
argue about a good update mechanism.

Hmm OK interesting. I like the argument though. Good exercise for 
the brain. :)

Java has something like the Needs header in specified in applet params. 
REBOL has the Needs header.

Website out on the web should have *no* control over decision making 
- only suggestions.  Website on a corporate trusted LAN should have 
heaps of control.

What are we developing for first ? I think it is the "wild web" first, 
isn't it ?

Interesting. OK, so we're leaning towards parallel side-by-side  
installs with automatic overwrite updates for security fixes?

(We should clarify this.)

Sounds good to me.

Yes, we're developing for the wild wild web.

:)

I'll compromise if you guys are set on this (slightly comlex) scheme.

(slightly complex)

I'd prefer ease of use over anything else.

I dislike being asked by my kids to install stuff for them all the 
time ...

(I just know the version checking is going to cause subtle problems. 
There's nothing simpler than a old-version < new-version test)

I also like being able to specify the REBOL generation in the Needs 
header of the script. It is more reliable than requiring it in applet 
params, and more compatible with View. Still, aplet params may be 
prefered if you don't want the launcher to have to read REBOL headers.

Understood Graham, but we're not there yet.

And my kids are more savvy than Grandpa Sally

I want to sleep on this. Good ideas. We still need to think of a 
good UI....I originally thought a popup "An update is available for 
REBOL/Plugin for Internet Explorer.  Would you like to update now"?

They should be able to figure out a right-click menu.

I think right-click is too hidden. Plus, applications need right-click 
support anyway right?

I kinda like allowing apps to have their own right-click menus.