23 replies to this topic

[PaulDG]

Is there any way to emulate pressing play to start a full build using code?

 

I would like a button on the script.project interface or the "Main Configuration"  interface that sets some flags/variables and then launches a full build.

 

I would also like to be able to put a button on individual components that emulates the little green play button after setting some vars.

 

Thanks

PaulDG

[Brito]

There is the possibility of launching a second instance of winbuilder completely unattended.
 
I've used this technique on the UXP project. This project basically integrates hotfixes and drivers onto a Windows XP install CD, then builds (unattended) a LiveXP and ends up combining them both.
 
You might be able to use the code to achieve as example for your own goals.
 
This was the relevant snippet:

ShellExecute,Open,"#$q%basedir%\Projects\MultiBoot\LiveXP\WinBuilder.exe#$q","/run=#$q%basedir%\Projects\MultiBoot\LiveXP\Projects\LiveXP\script.project#$q"

 
The full source code is found at http://uxp.winbuilde...p-liveCD.script

I don't remember the correct syntax for the unnatended options, I don't think they were even documented on the official wiki but it was added quite some ago:

- Running a single script in unattended is much simpler, new syntax: Winbuilder.exe /run="c:\test\apps\myApp.script"
This mode will automatically try to find it's respective project file and read all default values from there if none is specified on command line
- Unattended mode can run files with any .project filename (example: winbuilder.exe %basedir%\Projects\LiveXP\LiveXP.project)

http://reboot.pro/to...winbuilder-074/

[homes32]

I don't remember the correct syntax for the unnatended options, I don't think they were even documented on the official wiki but it was added quite some ago:
http://reboot.pro/to...winbuilder-074/

 

 

command line options where indeed properly documented quite some time ago (by yours truly ) HERE: http://code.google.c.../wiki/wbcmdline

[Brito]

Wow!
 

Thank you. I was indeed a bit sad to see this nifty feature forgotten on the oblivion of time. Seeing it so well documented was both a surprise and rejoice. In particular, I loved the practical examples.

 

[PaulDG]

Thanks, i'll give that a try.

 

Is development of this strain of WB finished? now that the 2013 Java version is in progress.

 

PaulDG

[Wonko the Sane]

Is development of this strain of WB finished? now that the 2013 Java version is in progress.

Which kind of development do you expect?

The "old" Winbuilder:

1. works and has worked for the last n years
2. there are tens of (working) projects making use of it and hundreds or thousands of .scripts
3. it is documented, even if this happens casually, and on a "voluntary basis" (thanks BTW to homes32 )

The "new" Winbuilder:

1. works and is faster
2. there is only a single project, noone exception made for Nuno or pscEx can make new ones, there are no .scripts for it
3. there is no documentation

There is no need whatsoever to develop the first and a desperate need to document the second and produce projects and scripts for it, even if noone (exclusion made for Nuno or pscEX) actually ever felt the need to have everything changed, and changed so radically, and judging from the amount of members actually interested in the "new" Winbuilder, we won't ever reach the point when the "new" Winbuilder will actually be used by any other developer but the two mentioned guru's.

 

Obviously a pre-requisite for shoving down people's throat the "new thing" is that any support and development for the "old one" is ceased.

 

Wonko

[Brito]

Apart from the long text of Wonko, you can use the syntax for versions 08x of Winbuilder since it is in stable state. This syntax hasn't changed since versions 074 of wb.

 

I don't recommend writing plugins for versions 2013 of winbuilder. There is a plugin system available right now with a user interface where buttons can be added but major changes are being introduced/tested. Wonko likes to highlight that exists no documentation as if it meant the end of the world. From my perspective there is little need to document a plugin system that is still in definition/testing.

 

 

Obviously a pre-requisite for shoving down people's throat the "new thing" is that any support and development for the "old one" is ceased.

 

I provide support to the "old one" when possible as seen for example on this topic. Homes32 is also supporting the previous versions of winbuilder when possible for him. Using our own (free time) resources, we are helping other folks. My focus is to work on newer editions of wb to move forward and reach a better builder. If other people find this work useful then I'm happy.

 

If you feel that we are "shoving down people's throat the new thing" then I'm sad to read this.

 

 

even if noone (exclusion made for Nuno or pscEX) actually ever felt the need to have everything changed, and changed so radically,

 

You say "noone" but "someone" developing projects for wb changed them so radically that a couple months ago the most popular wb projects completely broke apart the app scripts that had been working fine since years. So, please don't constitute "noone" as a fact.

 

Winbuilder is written to build boot disks in harsh conditions.

 

Building a Windows boot disk without official MS tools gets increasingly more complicated (admin permissions, proprietary formats, different CPU architectures, eminent desktop extinction). We moved ahead of these difficulties to deliver a project that copes better with the obstacles we identified as priority to address. This work is not yet finished, it is a work in progress and other features will be added as time permits.

 

If you think that "noone" wants radical changes, the older versions are available to be used. I don't see the need to "sell" the idea that changes are needed, we simply develop a builder that is better prepared for the upcoming changes and iteratively publish what we are doing.

 

Have a good weekend my friend.

 

[paraglider]

As you are unwilling to develop the old winbuilder ( for example port to new compilers ) why not open source the source?

[Wonko the Sane]

Nuno , everyone - not only you - supports the "old" Winbuilder, noone, not even you, develops it.

 

As said the "old one" works, and has been working for years.

 

Set aside the whiners   and a few (highly debatable, and actually debated - to no effect) decisions/choices in the language syntax, Winbuilder (the old one) is a successful, good, working, software with an incredible amount of .script and projects for it, most of which perfectly working. 

 

There is no real need to "develop" it, there are a zillion little, minor issues with it, all perfectly solvable, that for whatever reasons you and pscEx refused to:

1. admit
2. solve

Possibly under the effect of alcohol, drugs, senility or pride (or something else ) you decided to go for the current nonsensical "new" Winbuilder.

 

There is nothing "wrong" in the "old" one.

There is nothing "wrong" in the "new" one.

 

But they are different.

 

The first one is slower, has often a convoluted syntax (but that everyone has learned to live with and that is mostly documented) and a vast library of projects and scripts.

The second one is faster, has (most probably since we don't have access to it if not in some bits and pieces) a syntax that is as convoluted or more convoluted, has not any documented syntax and virtually no projects. 

 

The first works (if the scope is to build whatever the user wants to build) the second also works (if the scope is to build only what you and Peter want the user to build).

 

I do understand how fun is to play with new things , but usually the fun is playing with new things together with all the other kids.

 

This is the spell that was broken , you seem to not being able to realize this, and I am only trying to tell you what you appear like not being able to see with your own eyes.

 

Of course both are your (and pscEx's) creatures and you are obviously very (if not welcome) allowed to ruin them, but - as a friend - I cannot but tell you what I see (which you are as well and obviously perfectly free to ignore)

 

 

Wonko

 

 

 

 

[Brito]

There is nothing "wrong" in the "old" one.

There is nothing "wrong" in the "new" one.

 

From my perspective, there are relevant things "wrong" with the old one that are now addressed. The most relevant was the conditioning around Administrative permissions and dependency to Microsoft tools for handling WIM archives. In the process, other changes are being introduced. The second part of the new builder was trimming much of the bloat that plagued previous versions. Again, you are criticizing a builder that is still maturing in terms of changes and lacking the features that are available only with some time from now.

 

I have the feeling that I'm repeating myself here way too often and that you're not really interested in a constructive conversation. Eventually this might just lead that I stop giving any attention to what you write and answer only to other folks. My apologies if that happens, it helps me to focus on what needs to be done.

 

As you are unwilling to develop the old winbuilder ( for example port to new compilers ) why not open source the source?

 

We have plenty of talented and motivated people doing an excellent work with boot disks. The problem are divisions, guerilla and hurt feelings. The intention should be doing something useful with our free time, have fun and help others. Instead, we have people using these tools as some sort of weapon/material to hurt others. Even in the current status as closed source, some folks insist in copying everything that wb does and get nowhere. Why won't you ask them for the source code?

 

Or better yet, why won't people use the other builders that can actually run .script files if the authors desired? It is not that enough options don't exist out there already. Plus, I already released WinBuilder once as open source some seven years ago during the 04x versions, it was even called "Open Builder" under GPL. I don't have the energy nor the will to compete against people using my own source code as a weapon to derail the developments where I commit my effort so deeply. It is already bad enough to see what some folks do with our compiled versions of winbuilder. In fact, it was quite demotivating and exhausting to see it happening back then and to be involved. I prefer to avoid this kind of headaches.

 

Therefore, I find no joy in allowing the winbuilder source code to be used by those that offend my friends and lack basic netiquette manners (this is not directed to you Paraglider). You (or other older developers) are seriously welcome to join the winbuilder.exe development team and help to bring support for interpreting .script files or other aspects being implemented on the new versions of wb.

[Wonko the Sane]

Again, you are criticizing a builder that is still maturing in terms of changes and lacking the features that are available only with some time from now.

Not at all.
I am NOT criticizing the new builder, I am criticizing the way it has been presented, long before it was (rectius will be) mature enough.
 

I have the feeling that I'm repeating myself here way too often and that you're not really interested in a constructive conversation. Eventually this might just lead that I stop giving any attention to what you write and answer only to other folks. My apologies if that happens, it helps me to focus on what needs to be done.

It's ALREADY a long time that you give no attention to what I write (when it involves this "model"), till now you have answered, often without actually answering, or answering *something else*, I cannot but take note of this new threat .

This is what I was talking about:

You (or other older developers) are seriously welcome to join the winbuilder.exe development team and help to bring support for interpreting .script files or other aspects being implemented on the new versions of wb.

you want the other kids to play the game that you like (let's say conventionally "Cowboys and Indians") whilst most of the kids would like to play a better game, like "Cops and Robbers".

What I was trying to tell you is not that you are in any way "wrong" or "exceeding your rights"  in asking the other kids to play your preferred game, only that - hadn't you noticed - seemingly no or very few kids are wanting to play that same game you will allow them to play  .

Personally I like Calvinball, but that's another matter :
http://calvinandhobb...wiki/Calvinball
 
 

Other kids' games are all such a bore!
They've gotta have rules and they gotta keep score!
Calvinball is better by far!
It's never the same! It's always bizarre!
You don't need a team or a referee!
You know that it's great, 'cause it's named after me!

 

Wonko

[PaulDG]

Which kind of development do you expect?

Dude, I don't expect anything,

I was simply trying to ascertain if it was worthwhile asking for my original request to make it into a future version.

 

It might have lead on to me asking about the availability of the source code, I see thats aready been addressed below.

 

The rest of this thread has progressed beyond the scope of my original questions but I will add this.

 

I think its great to have a product that just does what you need ( You download it, you build it, you use the result ) but I think most of the users enjoy the experimenting, tweaking and customising aspect more than they do the actual result.

 

The community, depth of information and enjoyment is built around the interaction of a projects users.

 

PaulDG

[Wonko the Sane]

 

I think its great to have a product that just does what you need ( You download it, you build it, you use the result ) but I think most of the users enjoy the experimenting, tweaking and customising aspect more than they do the actual result.

 

The community, depth of information and enjoyment is built around the interaction of a projects users.

Exactly.

 

Wonko

 

P.S.: "Dude"?

[sbaeder]

As you are unwilling to develop the old winbuilder ( for example port to new compilers ) why not open source the source?

 

Does it "need" a port to a new compiler?   As I recall, there are some libraries included that provide functionality that aren't able to be completely "open source"...

 

But enough on all that...It is what it is, and the basic "engine" is quite sound, and a lot of that is desired to be added CAN be added using the scripting (as seen by the ability to do basically what was asked - Maybe not the cleanest, or most "elegant" manner...but possible to add a LOT of things using library like functionality...

 

In fact, that was one things that amazed me from the start - how a relatively simple "core" could so easily be extended in so many different ways.

 

it is documented, even if this happens casually, and on a "voluntary basis" (thanks BTW to homes32 )

 

In the spirit of how much Wonko prides himself on correctness, *I* pushed for a long time to improve the docs, and did the bulk of the initial  conversions of the original docs (that were in a few, hard-coded HTML web files) to the current system on the google code wiki. While maintenance is still voluntary, it has held up rather well the last few years and can even be exported into a windows "HLP" file.

 

Homes32 was very involved (and continues to be) a BIG help to the whole process, and is one of the few folks to have "editing" privs over on the doc site.  Both of us (as well as Peter) worked together to get the basics of the command line processingdocumented a bit over a year ago - just check the editing history on the Wiki...

 

Finally, credit to paraglider, who helped maintain the original HTML docs for so long, and still has them on his web site!

 

So, despite the bickering that often seems to flare up here, I (for one) am proud to stand on the shoulder's of the others before me who worked hard and long on this project (and are too numerous to mention).

 

Scott

[Wonko the Sane]

In the spirit of how much Wonko prides himself on correctness, *I* pushed for a long time to improve the docs, and did the bulk of the initial  conversions of the original docs (that were in a few, hard-coded HTML web files) to the current system on the google code wiki. While maintenance is still voluntary, it has held up rather well the last few years and can even be exported into a windows "HLP" file.

 

Homes32 was very involved (and continues to be) a BIG help to the whole process, and is one of the few folks to have "editing" privs over on the doc site.  Both of us (as well as Peter) worked together to get the basics of the command line processingdocumented a bit over a year ago - just check the editing history on the Wiki...

 

Finally, credit to paraglider, who helped maintain the original HTML docs for so long, and still has them on his web site!

For the record, there was no intention whatsoever to in any way diminish or belittle the very good work that you (sbaeder) and paraglider and all the other folks did with the docs, the "BTW thanks to Homes32" were intended to be simply a "BTW thanks to Homes32", nothing more, nothing less.

 

Wonko

[paraglider]

New compilers ( Lazerus / Free pascal  for example ) could provide a 64 bit version, and support for unicode. Total Commander is one program that went this route ( from Borland Pascal to Lazerus ) to provide 64 bit support.

 

The issue of UAC is continuously brought up. However if you don't like it you just switch it off or like me you live with it. I have used win7 / win 8 / win 8.1 as a software development platform in my job 40 + hours a week and always use UAC at its default settings. Never found it to be a problem.

[Brito]

We now build WinPE boot disks without any need for administrative restrictions. It is not a matter of "liking", it is the fact that users on workstations without admin rights are not able to directly run Winbuilder. Furthermore, it is a security risk that can damage the host Windows installation for end-users. Plus, new versions of Windows arbitrarily change the API and tooling support. We now have a tool independent from such changes.

 

And last, Lazarus is an awful compiler. It is slow as heck to compile something and the IDE is clunky to say the least, the number of libraries to use with Pascal is quite small which makes it very hard to find solutions or help. With Java there is Unicode by default and there are no worries about x86, x64 or x128 platforms. Everything works. If you want support for the .script language, you can volunteer to write a parser. The new wb scripts are far better in terms of programming, access to libraries and re-use the code from millions of snippets around the web.

 

In fact, the whole winbuilder is now a library. This problem of starting a build to play a project doesn't even exist on the most recent version of winbuilder. It is just a matter of calling build(); or runScript() to do something.

 

By all means. Go ahead and take your time to do everything with Lazarus. Bring back the .script language. Run happily with the need for admin permissions that don't bother you, find a group of people willing to devote their time to make it possible. In a year we can compare the results. However, in ten years only the new wb will be around as an active project because of it is low maintenance. Winbuilder doesn't care about UI, doesn't use an exotic programming language, doesn't even care about whatever operating system or CPU is popular at the time. It works.

 

[paraglider]

You are assuming that in 10 years Oracle has not killed Java.

[Wonko the Sane]

You are assuming that in 10 years Oracle has not killed Java.

Well, for that matters there is also the assumption that in 10 years anyone will still be interested in *anything* - included PE's - coming from Microsoft  maybe everyone will be making use of any among OSX, iOS or a Linux (or a BSD or *something else*) and Windows and Winbuilder may become completely irrelevant.

 

And, if you think a bit about it - and albeit very slowly - the good MS guys have been progressively making all our past work with PE's obsolete or unneeded.

 

When the last dinosaurs still using obsolete Operating Systems will have disappeared, the new kids will all have at the very minimum Windows 8, that already - through the Windows to GO provision - makes a lot of our PE's unneeded.

 

Who knows if with Windows 9 or 10 or 11  the good guys in Redmond will widen the target of the Windows to GO feature and  every edition (and every licensee) will be able to have his/her own portable Windows n on a USB stick?

 

BTW, being now been brilliantly written in Java, Winbuilder 2013 is portable, so even if the Windows platform will become obsolete, Winbuilder could be renamed to JavaBuilder (or Jbuilder or TheBuilder, etc.) and used successfully to build something that is not a PE and/or is not in any way connected to Windows.

However, we have the good ol' (worse programmed/less efficient/dumbly written in an obsolete language) Winbuilder that actually still works fine (albeit slowly) and a whole set of (dumb and old) working projects for it (and quite a lot of knowledge/syntax/familiarity with it). 

We also have the brand new (better programmed/more efficient/brilliantly written in a shining new language) Winbuilder 2013 that actually works fine (and faster) and that - judging the past progresses - within 2014 or 2015 (or possibly 2016) will be also choking full of (brilliant and new) projects, will have a syntax, and this syntax will be documented.

All hail Winbuilder 2013!

Wonko

[Brito]

You are assuming that in 10 years Oracle has not killed Java.

 

Java will be here. You might be assuming that Java bytecode and language are a "property" of Oracle, they are not. There is a reason why OpenJDK exists and why it is embraced by the industry as a long term technology.

 

Asides OpenJDK, different JVM (Java Virtual Machine) implementations exist, more will come to exist (http://en.wikipedia....irtual_machines) where wb already runs quite happily. One interesting possibility for the future is enabling support for Android devices. They run with their own implementation of Java called Dalvik, which is quite compatible with winbuilder since our work was designed from scratch to avoid dependency to any specific user interface (right now we implemented command line, normal GUI and a web based interface). Therefore, not much of an effort to run WinBuilder on normal tablet/cellphones if someone really desired.

 

We will be here.

[Brito]

Trolling message hidden from sight. Please refrain from further participation of this kind. Thanks.

[Wonko the Sane]

Please refrain from further participation of this kind. Thanks.

Roger, out.


Wonko

[Brito]

My thanks for understanding. Kind regards.

[Wonko the Sane]

My thanks for understanding. Kind regards.

JFYI, I do NOT "understand".
I obey and leave (which is different).


Wonko