S
Steve B.
Hi,
I'm building a CF 2.0 application.
I've build a msi setup that can install and deploy the application (which
is quite easy with a custom installer class and ceappmgr from activesync).
Now I'd like to enable my setup to detect and install the CF if required.
I've red many articles on the web, and most of them suggested to shipped the
CF with my app, and install it myself (with a native setup dll or a custom
CeRapi method).
What about if a user install a dozen of apps that require the CF ? With this
scenario, every app is responsible to install the CF... So if X apps require
the CF, the CF cabs will be copied X times ?
I've take a look at the redistribuable package of the CF 2.0. This seems to
be targetting a developper audience (since it installs in a SDK folder, and
installs some CF DLL on the "dev" computer)...
unlike the .Net CF 1.0 SP3 (I remember it installed only the cab files and a
ini file, before deploying it actually).
I'd appreciate some lighting on this scenario, which is surely a recurent
case.
Thanks in advance,
Steve
I'm building a CF 2.0 application.
I've build a msi setup that can install and deploy the application (which
is quite easy with a custom installer class and ceappmgr from activesync).
Now I'd like to enable my setup to detect and install the CF if required.
I've red many articles on the web, and most of them suggested to shipped the
CF with my app, and install it myself (with a native setup dll or a custom
CeRapi method).
What about if a user install a dozen of apps that require the CF ? With this
scenario, every app is responsible to install the CF... So if X apps require
the CF, the CF cabs will be copied X times ?
I've take a look at the redistribuable package of the CF 2.0. This seems to
be targetting a developper audience (since it installs in a SDK folder, and
installs some CF DLL on the "dev" computer)...
unlike the .Net CF 1.0 SP3 (I remember it installed only the cab files and a
ini file, before deploying it actually).
I'd appreciate some lighting on this scenario, which is surely a recurent
case.
Thanks in advance,
Steve