PDA

View Full Version : 3 MB Penalty for using ISScript now?



neal007
03-28-2006, 10:27 AM
Holy Mackerel, if I want to use ISScript I have to take a 3 MB hit now? Please don't take the approach like Microsoft that everyone has broadband! My goal is to provide the smallest downloads, one for slow Internet Connections, two, I have to pay for the bandwidth! Some developers working for large companies don't know the costs involved in these type of things, bandwidth costs money!

Not sure what happened from the previous 3/4 MB ISScript to the now DLL. I like the fact, which I believe is the way it is now, that we don't need an ISScriptXX.MSI installation prereq, but I don't want a 5X increase in file size for using ISScript. It will drive me away from ISScript I'm afraid!

Christopher Painter
03-28-2006, 10:39 AM
It's always been there in the form of ISScript.msi. Managed Code Custom Actions have a even bigger one ( What's the 2.0 framework now, 25MB? ).

I'm not actually put off by it, but I would hope to see a compiler and a linker that works in such a way that only needed parts of the runtime get linked into the DLL. I don't know how modular it is so I don't know how feasible that is.

Mike Marino
03-28-2006, 11:27 AM
Christopher is correct. We have removed ISScript.msi from the picture. So you are really not carrying any more bits that you have in the past. With the exception, if you made the assumption, that the script engine was on the machine already.

All setups that include InstallScript will now carry their own version of the engine.

Christopher Painter
03-28-2006, 02:36 PM
I do notice one thing, MSI does not compress tables.

I notice the 3MB DLL Zips down to 1.6MB I also notice that when I create a brand new MSI database in Orca and stream the 3MB DLL the database grows by 3MB.

Also the ISScript.msi I have ( IS9 ) is only 800K.

Maybe the DLL could be wrapped with some kind of exploder type compressor or saved in a compressed stream and extracted by a bootstrapper function.

It may seem like I'm nit picking, but this puppy is so close to perfection I'd have to see people get turned off to using it because of the size.

Mike Marino
03-28-2006, 04:13 PM
We are looking into some ways to make this smaller.

Christopher Painter
03-28-2006, 09:33 PM
Cool, thanks!

I really want this to work. I've used InstallScript for years and years and I understand how powerful and simplistic it is as a domain specific language. Unfortunatly the DCOM problems have burned so many people ( myself included ) that many have simply given up on them. Worse, they havn't just given up on InstallScript CA's, they have given up on InstallShield.

MartinMarkevics
03-29-2006, 12:01 PM
That's precisely what we've tried to address in this release. As Mike mentioned in his previous post, we are looking into making the enigne as compact as possible and have some promising leads on making this happen. If at all possible, it will be in the final build of 12, though I obviously can't make any promises.

Having said that I'll keep everyone here up to date on this since it is obviously an important issue based on the feedback we've gotten from everyone so far. When\if (hopefully when, not if) we address the size issue, I'll post the updated .dlls to this community so you can give it a try.