Even if MSI had bullet-proof support for script or managed-code CAs, it wouldn’t change the fact that if reliability is important, transactions should be as simple as possible. That’s true in databases as well as MSI.

I’ve built several setup kits that needed CAs to do odd things like rummage around inside an OLEDB database across a network, or probe on an IP address and port to see whether our discovery service is on the network, and if so ask it rather than the user for configuration info. This stuff would have been a walk in the park with script making use of C# assemblies. In C++ it was… educational. Which is similar to diabolical if you’ve never used C++ before.

Ed may have a slightly whiny tone but he also presents quite good answers to the major objections. In fact I am right now wondering whether it wouldn’t be interesting to write a CA that direct-hosts a VBScript engine that I keep inside the setupkit, rather than just throwing a VBS file at the shell and hoping it will run.

This is one the things that should have been taken care of by the instaler already. The instaler team has enhanced MSI for some while, but has not taken care of fixing some of the basic functionality of the product. I have submitted change request after change request for fixes to this since the beginning. Everytime I see posting referring to “this post by Rob Mensching”, I completly freak out.

This is total rubbish. All of his assumption are total bull. IMHO

1.- Robust code is difficult write in script.

This is utterly nonsense, bad code can be writing in any language, but specially C. If the developer of the custom action written in script can not do a simple try{}catch() on his code, changing to C would not make it any better.

2. Debugging script in the Windows Installer is difficult

Another stupid instaler team mistake and another request of mine. Has anyone on that team heard of “Active Scripting Host debug”. Microsoft for some while sold us the idea of scripting debugging, I built several of them. doesn’t that team care what their customer want?

3. Anti-virus products kill them

My anti-virus kills any new code I put in my machine. Many ways exist of fixing this, but the main one is: Just execute the stupid script, do not put it in the file system, get it directly from the binary table and execute it, simple isn’t it?

4.- Make sure jscript.dll and vbscript.dll are correctly registered.

So many things that are supposedly part of the base system (ie, media player, etc). Aren’t those part of the system too since they are required by and used by the former apps? Shouldn’t the system (MSI, etc) make sure they are in the correct state before executing an action which requires it?

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I honestly think that script should be the ONLY allowable way of writing custom action, since they provide sort of a sandbox model to protect the end user from ill-intented code from the part of the producer of the MSI and for the most part (i could say allways) they provide all the functionality you may possible need, besides the fact that script is so easy to write and debug (with the right support, of course)

I will send another set of emails to the Windows Installer Wishes mailto:msiwish@microsoft.com asking for some fixes for the upcoming 4.5 release. Let’s hope someone is actually listening…………

ICE08
ICE09
ICE32
ICE61

I found this out by opening Orca’s darice.cub in Orca itself. The CustomAction table’s Source column points to rows in the Binary table. The other 94 ICEs are implemented in three type-1 CA DLLs.