Page 1 of 1

Revisiting Sparkle

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:27 pm
by RickM
Just a quick follow up note about automatic updating. This was discussed briefly on this forum last year and the year before, and Ori was looking into it. Recently Jon at Bookends has implemented auto update using the Sparkle framework. I wonder if some of the previous issues preventing this move for Mellel have been dealt with? In any case, I thought I would mention this again, because the feature is so useful. It works like a charm on BE.

Best,
Rick

Re: Revisiting Sparkle

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:06 am
by DanZac
I'd really like to see this for Mellel too

Re: Revisiting Sparkle

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:11 am
by daiyi
I, too, wouldn't mind seeing this implemented. But first things first. Sparkle also is more appealing for those applications with frequent updates.

Re: Revisiting Sparkle

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:28 am
by nvalvo
The sarcasm of this last post was, um..., palpable.
:wink:

Re: Revisiting Sparkle

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:03 pm
by daiyi
nvalvo wrote:The sarcasm of this last post was, um..., palpable.
:wink:
Is that so? :wink:

Re: Revisiting Sparkle

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:40 pm
by SteveH
Is Sparkle compatible with an application that has a licencing duration? Hypothetically if I had registered in March 2006 and used Sparkle to go from 2.0.6 then to 2.2.7.2 in March 2008 them my next auto update put me over the limit is there any way back from there?

Re: Revisiting Sparkle

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:15 pm
by Reiner
That's the reason why Sparkle is not yet implemented if I remember correctly.

Re: Revisiting Sparkle

Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:00 am
by zoul
I think this can be handled easily. If Mellel knows how long the license lasts, it can disable the automatic updates when the license expires or display a warning. But discussing new features seems quite pointless right now…

Re: Revisiting Sparkle

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:08 pm
by scott
Do we really need an updater? I prefer dragging the new version into the Applications directory manually. Even if Mellel was updated more frequently, I would still prefer this means of installation because it's simple and clean. Adding an installer takes development time away from what I would consider more important things in the application itself and is one more piece of code that can go wrong. Sorry if that's not the majority opinion, but I really think we should ditch the idea of having an installer/updater completely.

/s.

Re: Revisiting Sparkle

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:14 am
by zoul
Adding Sparkle is really a trivial task [probably a day, even with the license expiration check] and the automatic update can be turned off by those who would prefer to update by hand. I prefer applications updating themselves – dragging a new version to the Applications folder is indeed an easy task, but with 5–10 applications and monthly updates it gets old pretty soon. We could even make a poll to see if people want automatic updates. But as I already said: There are tons of much more important features to be done right now.

Re: Revisiting Sparkle

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:47 pm
by DanZac
Thought I'd post in this thread to bring it up back to the top and in the spotlight again. Both Mellel's main partners (Sente and Bookends) both update with Sparkle and it is fantastic. I'd really like to see Sparkle updating for Mellel.