As many of you know, we are already have pre-release going for ColdFusion Next.
Many of you may have also heard about some of the changes that we are making to the product, such as reducing the overall size of the installer to around 200 MB. We are able to accomplish this because we are breaking the CF runtime into tiny modules that can be installed on demand whenever needed.
As a result of all this, we are contemplating whether we need a user interface anymore for the installer at all. For instance, in our alpha pre-release program, we only have the zip installers with some scripts to be executed where you can pass the same inputs that used to be captured via a user interface earlier. There is no user interface to go through to install ColdFusion.
Now the question is, can this be the new normal? Do you see any concern at all, if we get rid of the user interface for the installer? Installation will now be *only* via command line. Remember, we are only talking about the installer – not the CF administrator, The CF administrator UI will remain as is.
Do you see any concern if we go ahead and permanently remove the user interface for the installer? If yes, let us know about it in the comments below!
.png)
.png)
.png)
I’ve been a windows cf user since version 4.5
I really like the ease of the GUI install, and would not want to lose it.
Perhaps the issue here is related to installer size and/or use case: is the user setting up a single standalone installation of Standard edition on their only Windows server, or is the user trying to automate scaled cloud or container deployment. Both are scenarios that I can see being relevant.
Hence perhaps the solution is to offer TWO installers: with and without GUI, so that the latter can be made small and used with automation, but the former is there for the “small” users.
I’m really glad to see more and more people coming out here with the suggestion that it seems curious to “just drop” a GUI installer, especially for Windows users. I can totally see the benefit of improving command-line options, for those preferring it, but my concern is that this move seemed too strongly oriented toward a presumption that “such command-line installations are what most people use these days”.
As someone who helps people install CF at least weekly, I can say that for Windows users at least, virtually none have asked about command-line options. Nearly all have proceeded with the GUI installer–and again virtually none have lamented “why do I have to do through these prompts?”
I held back saying this, because the initial chorus was from folks ok with “no gui”. I didn’t want to be the only one presenting the other side–especially since my assertions (on behalf of others) could be accused of being nothing more than “hear say”. I was really hoping to see others make the case, and so I present this as a “friend of the court” brief rather than as a “class action” complaint. 🙂
I don’t personally think it should be too hard for even folks accustomed to a GUI to deal with a command-line installer, if it’s well done (heck, I have long had complaints about the GUI prompts themselves). And I appreciate that leaning that way could bring more folks to appreciate the value of automating the installs, and perhaps drive improvements in that regard, which would then benefit everyone.
But I do think it’s important to speak out and represent the large number of folks I work with (who are not active in the community), to say that not “everyone” will want command-line installers and that it’s not that “no one will miss” the GUI installers. 🙂 Still, I realize there needs to be a balance of considerations in how best to handle the matter, and that they may well go away anyway.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
22 Sep 2025
Las Vegas, NV
