[darmawan efendi]

When developer get some issue error in their program, they will fix the error and reinstall in client side.
After some months I search at google, I get a good article about software update

http://windowsclient.net/articles/appupdater.aspx

.
I already applied method in article, everything worked successfully. But I still confuse which the best method between 2 method below for applying updater.

Method 1 :
We develop an program full in one .exe file, so when program will update from client side, we download file from server (full installer). after success downloaded,
the old program in client we uninstall first. after that we install full again from new file which already downloaded.

Method 2 :
We develop separate module and we package become one .exe. So when developer get some error and fixed that error,
in client side just download that module (not full installer) and can be directly apply to old program without reinstall the old program.


In Method 1, Full installer is a large size and in method 2, file which downloaded to client is small size.


This is my method. If you get different idea. feel free to share.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you.

[RudiVisser]

It would probably be best to create some sort of semi-patching method.

What I mean is, rather than a real patch (used mostly by open source programs / interpreted language-applications) just patch the components that you need to change.

Say for example you have an application made up of the following structure:

YourApplication.exe
CustomComponent.dll
IOSystem.dll
Networking.dll

A vulnerability/bug is found in Networking.dll, so you post an update and only that file is replaced.

Not only does this reduce the download size / time but it's a much quicker update process than uninstalling/reinstalling everything. It also, of course, allows you to have different versions of each module in your application, which can be good in certain situations.

[darmawan efendi]

RudiVisser, on 05 September 2011 - 06:31 AM, said:

It would probably be best to create some sort of semi-patching method.

What I mean is, rather than a real patch (used mostly by open source programs / interpreted language-applications) just patch the components that you need to change.

Say for example you have an application made up of the following structure:

YourApplication.exe
CustomComponent.dll
IOSystem.dll
Networking.dll

A vulnerability/bug is found in Networking.dll, so you post an update and only that file is replaced.

Not only does this reduce the download size / time but it's a much quicker update process than uninstalling/reinstalling everything. It also, of course, allows you to have different versions of each module in your application, which can be good in certain situations.

I think what you say is better way to update process. Thank you for your help.

[_HAWK_]

Also using an msi and version control you gain control over updates especially if you have a professional msi builder. You can use an auto-updater (program you build) to check the server for a new version.

[darmawan efendi]

hawkvalley1, on 07 September 2011 - 07:34 PM, said:

Also using an msi and version control you gain control over updates especially if you have a professional msi builder. You can use an auto-updater (program you build) to check the server for a new version.

I already hear about this but I'm still confuse how to implement using an msi. I'm using setup development from visual studio.

[_HAWK_]

To do an update you simply increment the version, and it will prompt you to change the product number - select yes. Then when the msi runs on the same computer it will apply your changes.

[darmawan efendi]

_HAWK_, on 10 September 2011 - 06:35 AM, said:

To do an update you simply increment the version, and it will prompt you to change the product number - select yes. Then when the msi runs on the same computer it will apply your changes.

I will try this. Thank you for your help.