That'd be the ugly link:
http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/joomla/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=32976
...much nicer would be; http://issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/2689

@mbabker You have been reworking the installer. What do you think of this?

I haven't touched the install app

So I'm mixed on this. We usually exempt the install app from B/C rules because of its "one and done" nature, so extending devs would need to accept higher probability of breaks or we'd have to lock down the B/C rules here. On the other hand, allowing the app to be extended could enable devs and those managing third party install services to hook into our architecture for custom install routines.

You could argue either way on this one. As long as the result is consistent I'd say it's fine either way. I'd just suggest having the full constructor here and not a partial one (so add the web client object even though I doubt that would ever be extended or modified).

@WooDzu Could you provide test instructions for this change? Please also have a look at Michael's suggestion for adding the web client object. Thank you.

I'm not against opening the final class like this - but we should make clear with an @api tag that the installation application is not subject to b/c like the rest of the CMS (as per our general policy with the installer for J)

@wilsonge This PR hasn't seen an update in quite some time and is old. I am going to close this PR, if you feel like this should be pursued further, feel free to re-open the PR. Thank you for your contribution.