This website uses cookies. By clicking Accept, you consent to the use of cookies. Click Here to learn more about how we use cookies.
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
- Revenera Community
- :
- InstallShield
- :
- InstallShield Forum
- :
- Re: Do I need MSXML if I have .NET 3.5?
Subscribe
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Oct 11, 2011
02:42 PM
Do I need MSXML if I have .NET 3.5?
In previous versions of our product, we included the MSXML 4.0 Merge Module. However, I've noticed in this wikipedia article that MSXML 6.0 is included as part of the .NET Framework 3.0.
Because of this, I decided to stop including the merge module. Now when I build the installer, it says:
Since I have .NET 3.5 as a prereq, can I safely ignore this warning? I do perform some XML File Changes using the installer.
Thanks!
Paul
Because of this, I decided to stop including the merge module. Now when I build the installer, it says:
ISDEV : warning -7181: XML file changes requires MSXML 3.0 or later at run time. It is recommended that the setup verify that MSXML is present on the target machines, or that it include MSXML prerequisites or merge modules.
Since I have .NET 3.5 as a prereq, can I safely ignore this warning? I do perform some XML File Changes using the installer.
Thanks!
Paul
(4) Replies
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Oct 17, 2011
01:41 PM
Test on the oldest / barest OS you plan on supporting and if you xml changes work you are fine.
Vista and beyond includes .NET 3.0 and hence includes MSXML 6 by default. It's also included in XP SP3.
Personally I think it's a pretty good idea to only support XP SP3 and beyond. Previous XP reallys should be patchd and Win 9X/NT/W2K should die unless you have a critical busines need.
Vista and beyond includes .NET 3.0 and hence includes MSXML 6 by default. It's also included in XP SP3.
Personally I think it's a pretty good idea to only support XP SP3 and beyond. Previous XP reallys should be patchd and Win 9X/NT/W2K should die unless you have a critical busines need.
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Oct 17, 2011
01:54 PM
Thanks for your answer, Christopher.
Yes, we do only support XP SP3 and beyond, and furthermore, we require .NET 3.5 SP1, so I'm confident that MSXML 6.0 will be there. My only worry is that according to the wikipedia article, there are some depreciated features from MSXML 4.0 that are not in 6.0, so I'm slightly worried that the InstallShield XML File Changes could depend on these depreciated features. (Although the help says '(MSXML) 3.0 or later' so I should be okay).
But you are right, a vanilla XP SP3 installation should prove whether or not this is true.
Thanks again,
Paul
Yes, we do only support XP SP3 and beyond, and furthermore, we require .NET 3.5 SP1, so I'm confident that MSXML 6.0 will be there. My only worry is that according to the wikipedia article, there are some depreciated features from MSXML 4.0 that are not in 6.0, so I'm slightly worried that the InstallShield XML File Changes could depend on these depreciated features. (Although the help says '(MSXML) 3.0 or later' so I should be okay).
But you are right, a vanilla XP SP3 installation should prove whether or not this is true.
Thanks again,
Paul
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Oct 18, 2011
11:41 AM
There are indeed some nifty features in MSXML4 but InstallShield does not depend on them. What's more likely to break is the instantiation of MSXML; some of our MSXML instantiation code has been brittle in the past, and didn't handle multiple versions very well. I think all our current run-time code can use multiple different versions with ease, but, as Chris says, you should always verify your supported configurations actually work.
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Oct 18, 2011
01:35 PM
Thanks, Michael.
And just for closure, installation works fine on a basic XP SP3 system.
Paul
And just for closure, installation works fine on a basic XP SP3 system.
Paul
![](/skins/images/8CE4FAD0DE6F3A6F9D0567434D2D2DAE/responsive_peak/images/icon_anonymous_message.png)