WebM Media Foundation Components installer experience
SebMouren
I find the current experience delivered by the WebM Media Foundation
Components(webmmf) installer unsatisfying .
Here are my main unsatisfactory point:
-Webmmf components work only on Vista/2k8(?)/7/2K8R2(?) but the
installer doesn't enforce those platform limitation.
-Omaha (Google Update) client registration and Windows Media Player
integration should be optional even if turned on by default or at
least be separated from components themselves.
-There is no enterprise facilities included for mass deployment and
setup logging.
-Some OS or application integration elements are missing. For example
with Windows Media Player,or IE MIME database. Others could be added
such as preview and thumbnail.
Do you share my views?
Tom Finegan
> Hello,
> I find the current experience delivered by the WebM Media Foundation
> Components(webmmf) installer unsatisfying .
> Here are my main unsatisfactory point:
> -Webmmf components work only on Vista/2k8(?)/7/2K8R2(?) but the
> installer doesn't enforce those platform limitation.
Agree, bugged:
http://code.google.com/p/webm/issues/detail?id=329
> -Omaha (Google Update) client registration and Windows Media Player
> integration should be optional even if turned on by default or at
> least be separated from components themselves.
The former isn't really a possibility-- we must distribute the
components with an auto update facility in place, and Omaha solves
that problem.
Can you go into specifics about the WMP integration? I'm not really
sure where the problem you're referring to lies: i.e. do you want the
component and mimetype registration to be optional, or the
registration of the .webm file type, or all of the above?
> -There is no enterprise facilities included for mass deployment and
> setup logging.
Can you give me an example of what you're looking for?
> -Some OS or application integration elements are missing. For example
> with Windows Media Player,or IE MIME database. Others could be added
> such as preview and thumbnail.
>
Can you provide some detail on the other features you're looking for?
Preview and thumbnail certainly make sense, btw.
Preview/thumbnail portion bugged:
http://code.google.com/p/webm/issues/detail?id=330
> Do you share my views?
>
That depends on clarification of some of the above points... :)
Thanks for the feedback!
Tom
SebMouren
> > Hello,
> > I find the current experience delivered by the WebM Media Foundation
> > Components(webmmf) installer unsatisfying .
> > Here are my main unsatisfactory point:
> > -Webmmf components work only on Vista/2k8(?)/7/2K8R2(?) but the
> > installer doesn't enforce those platform limitation.
>
> Agree, bugged:http://code.google.com/p/webm/issues/detail?id=329
>
> > -Omaha (Google Update) client registration and Windows Media Player
> > integration should be optional even if turned on by default or at
> > least be separated from components themselves.
>
> The former isn't really a possibility-- we must distribute the
> components with an auto update facility in place, and Omaha solves
> that problem.
status.
Setup scenarii are numerous and deployment operators (end-users, it
management departements or OEMs) don't necessarily want the Google
Update client setup and its permanent execution.
By the way you (as the current setup developer) should understand that
because you're already using two packages:
- the first, WebMMFSetup.exe, deploys the Google Update client with
instructions to download and setup the second,
- the second, install_webmmf_*.*.*.*.exe , deploys the WebM Media
foundation Components and it registers them with Google Update client
for automatic updates.
I would like:
-Media Foudation component files, their COM and their Media Foundation
registrations obligatorily set up.
IE9, shell, WMP and Google Update client registrations as options
(setup time options) with defaults: coming from the WebMMFSetup.exe
all set up by default (with a simple command line for the second
package) but switchable, coming from the install_webmmf_*.*.*.*.exe
none set up by default but selectable.
> Can you go into specifics about the WMP integration? I'm not really
> sure where the problem you're referring to lies: i.e. do you want the
> component and mimetype registration to be optional, or the
> registration of the .webm file type, or all of the above?
I consider COM registration as CLSID, ProgIds in the registry etc...
I consider Media Foundation registration as transform and bytehandlers
registry registration
I consider Shell integration as file type association (currently not
optimally done)
I consider Internet Explorer integration as principally MIME database
handling for download (other parts are done through media foundation)
I consider WMP integration as WebM media registry settings and context
menu media player verbs (actually not done)
I consider Google Update client integration as WebM Components
registrations in Omaha client.
This said. I would like WMP integration as a setup option with
defaults (see my previous remark).
> > -There is no enterprise facilities included for mass deployment and
> > setup logging.
>
> Can you give me an example of what you're looking for?
I have and I really enjoyed its capabilities and its flexbility.
> > -Some OS or application integration elements are missing. For example
> > with Windows Media Player,or IE MIME database. Others could be added
> > such as preview and thumbnail.
>
> Can you provide some detail on the other features you're looking for?
further details in another part.
Thanks for your interest.
Sébastien Mouren
Tom Finegan
[...]
> - the second, install_webmmf_*.*.*.*.exe , deploys the WebM Media
> foundation Components and it registers them with Google Update client
> for automatic updates.
>
Auto update of the components is a requirement placed upon the
components by both Google and Microsoft. I'm sorry, but there's no
room for flexibility on the subject.
> I would like:
> -Media Foudation component files, their COM and their Media Foundation
> registrations obligatorily set up.
> IE9,
This isn't optional. IE9 is going to use the MediaFoundation
components if they're installed (aka registered). If you want WebM
support on user systems, but don't want WebM support in IE9, my
suggestion would be to use the WebM project DirectShow filters-- IE9
does not load DirectShow filters.
> shell, WMP
Can be done. Work in this area would be done as part of addressing
issue 330: http://code.google.com/p/webm/issues/detail?id=330
[...]
> I'm not sure we are using the same grouping:
> I consider COM registration as CLSID, ProgIds in the registry etc...
> I consider Media Foundation registration as transform and bytehandlers
> registry registration
To clarify, MediaFoundation registration (bytesteam handler/media
source/transform registration and mimetype association in the windows
registry) happens at COM registration time. The registry updates
happen during the DllRegisterServer call from regsvr32.
Thanks for the interest-- your feedback has been very useful.
Regards,
Tom
> I consider Shell integration as file type association (currently not
> optimally done)
> I consider Internet Explorer integration as principally MIME database
> handling for download (other parts are done through media foundation)
> I consider WMP integration as WebM media registry settings and context
> menu media player verbs (actually not done)
> I consider Google Update client integration as WebM Components
> registrations in Omaha client.
> This said. I would like WMP integration as a setup option with
> defaults (see my previous remark).
>
>> > -There is no enterprise facilities included for mass deployment and
>> > setup logging.
>>
>> Can you give me an example of what you're looking for?
>
> Did you ever experience a well done Windows Installer database?
> I have and I really enjoyed its capabilities and its flexbility.
>
>> > -Some OS or application integration elements are missing. For example
>> > with Windows Media Player,or IE MIME database. Others could be added
>> > such as preview and thumbnail.
>>
>> Can you provide some detail on the other features you're looking for?
>
> I summarized these in my grouping description but should go into
> further details in another part.
>
> Thanks for your interest.
>
> Sébastien Mouren
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Application Developers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to apps-...@webmproject.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to apps-devel+...@webmproject.org.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/group/apps-devel/?hl=en.
>
>