Is there any way I can ignore all the java components that Install4J uses? For example not requiring the user to have java installed? I have a very simple executable that I would like the user to install onto their machine and I would like the user to be able to enter some input for things like port.
The issue is that Install4J requires you to have java downloaded, and it also installs a ton of unnessary items that I don't need for this project.
Reason I'm using Install4J is my company has a license for it, and its very clean and easy to use unlike something like Inno where its windows only and I would need to learn how to script it.
The project is a javascript nodejs file thats already been packaged. I just need a neat installer so that all the client needs to do is enter some information such as port and have the program read the xml file for the needed input.
Thanks.
EDIT: Seems to not be possible. See: Can you use nodejs with install4j
Related
Can you use install4j with nodejs? I have a server I need to have an installer for, can install4j work with this?
If not do any of you know something that can/
Other installers seem that would take a lot of time to solve my issue, since I also need information from the user (like paths.)
You can install anything with install4j. However, the installer requires a JRE to run so you have to bundle one with it, even though you don't need it for your installed application. Also, a lot of install4j's functionality is geared towards supporting Java launchers, so that will not be useful for you.
We are about to start a new project which should be like a desktop app but still run inside a browser for creating items in a system. After these items are created, an .EXE file on the LOCAL machine must be called to do some code generation. Is this possible if using Angular to develop the application or do we need third party libs for executing local .exe's?
No, this is not possible out of the box. Browsers make very sure that local executables cannot be started. You would have to look for other solutions.
One possible idea, depending on how much effort you want to invest, would be to compile the WebKit engine yourself, i.e., create a binary "wrapper" which runs the browser engine itself. Then you are free to extend it in whatever fashion you need, including adding the possibility to start local .exe's (or if those .exe's are your own applications, you could compile them right into your WebKit wrapper).
I'm looking for the proper way to distribute/deploy a node.js app that would run as a small webserver on the user's machine.
Is there a stub method or install script or a "install wizard" that would download all node_modules dependencies, download the latest nodejs binary, set up the environment, etc... or I have to distribute it bulk with everything packed? Is there any guide for that purpose?
Edited :
You could install node and npm, download your dependencies by running npm install in the command line (first declare them within your package.json) only then users can run your script. This is how you do development in Node.js, or deploy to a development server. See using npm. You could automate that with a shell script if that is what you are after.
However, when distributing programs to end-users that might not be the best approach. Linux users are used to a package (.deb for instance) and Windows users are used to an .exe or a setup wizard.
That is why I recommended the tools below. I also assumed you were targeting Windows as this is less of a problem is unix-like environments.
If you want a single file (.exe), pkg and nexe are made for that purpose. These Node.js tools are used by the developer to compile JavaScript code into a single executable binary that is convenient for end-users and Windows deployment. The resulting .exe file is very light and does not require node to be installed on the end-user’s computers.
Electron along with electron-packager can produce setup wizards, but it installs a lot of files even for the smallest program. Your program will include all of node and webkit, that is why it produces heavy installs.
NSIS can also create a setup wizard, it is simple and does common stuff well (copying files, running shell scripts).
Original answer:
Short answer is: not really.
You have to keep in mind that Javascript is and has always been interpreted, so until recently never compiled to binary as you might do with other languages. Some exploration has been going on, but essentially you won’t get a "good practice" answer.
The long answer is, maybe, for some limited use cases:
There is the fresh new pkg that does exactly this, and it looks promising.
There has been nexe for a while, it works great for some use cases (maybe yours). Native/compiled modules are still an issue however.
Electron might work for a full blown app with a significant user interface, but it is not light or compact.
You could always use browserify to concatenate and uglify all your code with the modules you use and then make an installer with something like NSIS to setup node and your script. Native modules would still be a problem however.
I am still new to the electron ecosystem and desktop development in general but what I wish to do is to interface with a third party, open source application that comes bundled in with my software. First, I am unsure on what the package options to distribute should be. Is it customary to have two downloads, one for users that already have the third party binary installed, and another one that includes it? Also how do I go about actually packaging, and installing the binary? Should this be an option on my package.json? What kind of script should I execute? Are there any npm modules to facilitate this?
edit - is it possible to invoke npm from my main.js even though a user has not previously installed node? I know node is bundled with the electron package but is npm too?
-The binary in this case is PostgreSQL
There are a couple of options coming to my mind.
Bundle a 3rd party installer w/ your app. This is what I did recently. On the first run I check if the service that I need is installed / running and if not I call the 3rd party installer / start it. When the installer quits I simply app.relaunch() and start consumig it. Of course you'll need installers for each platform you plan to support. And you'll have to figure out ways to check if the software is installed (properly) for each platform.
Bundle binaries w/ you app. Of course you can bundle pretty much anything w/ your electron app. Again, you'll need binaries for each platform you plan to support. And of course they shouldn't be linked to anything that the default user doesn't have on his machine like SDKs and additional headers ...
Less comfy but you can alway add some start-up message or before-download massage telling the user that he needs software xy in order to run your application.
Derivate of 1/2: Download required stuff on demand. For your example this would mean checking the user's OS and arch and then just download the required installers or binaries if available. You could also build the stuff on the user's machine although this probably being the worst/biggest/most complex solution.
Then there's things like https://www.npmjs.com/package/pg - you should always check npm if someone already built what you need ;)
I'd recommend using the great electron-builder which makes bundling stuff w/ your app a piece of cake.
Feel free to comment if you need more intel.
I am getting into a position where I have to use other people code for projects, for example openTLD. I want to change some of the code to give it more functionality and use it in a diffrent way. What I have found is that many people have packaged their files in such a way that you are supposed to use
cmake
and then
make
and sometimes after that
make install
I don't want to install the software on my system. What I am looking to do is get these peoples code to a point where I can add to it in Eclipse or even just using Nano and then compile it.
At what point is the code in a workable/usable state. Can I use it after doing cmake or do I need to also call make? Is my thinking correct that it would be better to edit the code after calling cmake as opposed to before? I am not going to want my finished code to be cross platform supported, it will only be on Linux. Is it easer to learn cmake and edit the code befor running cmake as opposed to not learning cmake and using the code afterwards, if that is possible?
You question is a little open ended.
Looking at the opentld project, there is a binary and a library available for use. If you are interested in using the binary in your code, you need to download the executables(Linux executables are not posted). If you are planning to use the library, you have two options. Either you use the pre-built library or build it during your build process. You would include the header files in your custom application and link with the library.
If you add more details, probably others can pitch in with new answers or refine the older ones.