PDA

View Full Version : User-defined fields in the update object...?



smcgill
07-07-2003, 10:26 AM
I was just wondering if there is any mechanism in place, or if it'd be possible to at some point to set user defined values in the update object?

We'd like to possibly "stuff" some extra information, more so than what is currently set in the update object. So, my current solution is to use name value pairs in the description field, which I'll parse when I get an update notification.

Ex. description: UpdateType=SelfExtractingEXE;VendorVersion=3.3;VendorProductCode={123-123-1234}

Basically, I currently need about 5 extra properties due to our product architecture... and user-defined properties would allow me to do so more easily, so I was wondering if this would be feasible as a future feature to the update service.

Chris Woerner
07-14-2003, 08:37 AM
Let me replay that back to you to make sure I understand properly....

At install time, you want to set and store additional properties for your product (5 total). These properties could be different for different groups of users.

At runtime, you want to send different updates to users based on the values of these properties.

Did I get that right? If so, did you consider setting registry values and using conditional messages?

smcgill
07-14-2003, 08:45 AM
Actually, what I meant is that I want to store more data for an update than is currently available via the admin web page.

So, currently there are the following properties that you can define for an update : Title, DownloadURL, ProductCode, DisplayVersion, ProductName, DownloadSize, CommandLine, Details, Description, Category, ID & TargetDir.

I need to sort of stuff extra information into the update by putting name=value pairs in the description field & then parse them. So, I just had a thought that user-defined fields could be helpful.

These values would be something that would be applicable to all users & are not something registry values could help. Just extra properties in the update object.

Chris Woerner
07-14-2003, 08:51 AM
Thanks for the clarification. I get it now.