I want to hide a Sharepoint web that has been deprecated (via custom means) due to the release of a newer version, whether it would be making it invisible in the sites and workspaces, or via some special archiving function provided by Sharepoint. Basically I do not wish the users to be able to see the deprecated site.
I was wondering what are the options for doing so, both programmatically or via Sharepoint utils/interfaces?
Thanks.
UPDATE:
The scenario where I want to hide the web from the users (e.g. Webv1.0 when Web2.0 is available) is a bit like, okay, I have version 2.0 of Software X downloaded and installed, and it has converted all of my data into version 2.0 format so it will be compatible with new features. As a user, I would not want to use Software X version 1.0 anymore since it is now old. Of course I would want a backup copy of my data from version 1.0, but I probably don't want to be confused by having a link here which can get me to version 1.0 of the software (and from a developer's point of view, it'll be extra unnecessary work to make version 1.0 being viewable/editable in version 2.0).
I thought of the idea of using security to only allow admins to see everything, but I want to explore other options first e.g. whether it is possible to make the link to the old site disappear programmatically.
Thanks.
Could you just remove all access to that site (by breaking security inheritance) and just allow admins only access to it?
Colin's answer sounds like the way to go. Alternatively you can inject a little bit of JavaScript that automatically redirects the user to the new version of the site.
You can add JavaScript using a content Editor Web Part (one page at a time) or by using the free SharePoint Infuser (all pages in one go).
Related
Given the crackdown on VPNs in China, I was wondering if there is a user-friendly way of allowing Chinese users to install and update Chrome web extensions?
Distributing the CRX of the extension for users to install manually, as others have suggested, is tolerable (though not ideal), but I would particularly like to avoid the requirement for users to re-install the extension whenever an update is available.
As far as I can tell from the docs, it is not possible to publish an extension in the Web Store with an "update_url" parameter in the manifest that doesn't point to https://clients2.google.com/service/update2/crx. Is there any way of distributing an external Chrome extension to these users with a private "update_url"that will allow auto-updates?
Edit
I have read the relevant documentation on alternative distribution methods/hosting/packaging etc that seem to suggest that https://clients2.google.com/service/update2/crx is the only valid update URL. However, since there are a large number of Chrome users in China I am curious if there is a viable solution to the problem of distributing extensions and updates to them - this seems like quite an important issue and it's one that, as far as I can tell, is not explicitly addressed in the docs.
As far as official docs go, you have Alternative Extension Distribution Options:
All Chrome extensions must be distributed either directly from the
Chrome Web Store, using inline installation, or using the mechanisms
described below. Failure to comply with one of these distribution
methods constitutes a violation of the Chrome extension policy and may
result in the extension and/or the software distributing it to be
flagged as unwanted software.
Usually, users install their own extensions from the Chrome Web Store
or some other site via inline installation. But sometimes you might
want an extension to be installed via other means. Here are two
typical cases:
I'm currently running and installation of Joomla v3.3.3 on a server. It says that there's an update available for v3.5.1. I'd like to know if it's a good idea to update to this version. There are several additional modules used by the website and I'm afraid that the whole frontend will be broken after updating. Are there any security issues? Or am I fine if I'm staying on this version?
its always best to stay up to date as the updates frequently address various security concerns. Its not difficult for a potential attacker to know when a website is built on the various popular frameworks. I can spot a joomla or wordpress site every time.
It is also best practice to backup your website before performing updates.
Myself, I like to create a copy of the entire site and database in another directory or sub domain and test update on that. if all seems good i then create a backup of the live site before installing the update as updates can fail for random reasons.
joomla updating guide
It's a best practice in web development to stay up to date, with updates we have improvements in security, functionality, performance or design.
Some extensions are not compatible with the latest joomla! versions, so you also need check the news for each extension in their websites, also you can check the updates in:
Extensions > Manage > Update > Find Updates Button
If for some reason you have an extension that should not be updated and you see the notification in the back-end, you can disable it in:
Extensions > Manage > Update > Update Sites
Note: Before any change in your site, create a backup. One popular extension to automate your backup process is Akeeba Backup.
I am planning to upgrade my company's intranet from liferay 6.0.6CE to 6.2CE. I have done some research on it but I am still confused on API part. Will my custom portlets need only recompilation or would they need a complete rewriting. I am also concerned about my Theme and Exts. I have a lot of customization in my exts and my theme. What would be the best way to move ahead?
Also I have a NFS file server and SOLR search server configured with my current deployment. Need suggestions on that too.
I've heard recently, that the Migration Tool (6.1 to 6.2) now also supports themes. It won't be pixel perfect though. Check what it can do for you.
There have been some APIs that changed. Contrary to the comments given to your question, I'd say "It depends": I don't know how much of Liferay's API you use or if you just add functionality on top. You'll have to find out for yourself. The migration tool might help you.
The things that have changed the most are: Themes (using Bootstrap, as of 6.2) and Document Library (now including ImageGallery, which was still available in 6.0). Migration of data should be smooth if you follow the documented upgrade path. Migration of your portlets and plugins will definitely require recompile (within the new plugins sdk or updated maven dependencies) and probably adaptation to some changed API calls. I've seen instances where this was simple, but I've also seen hard cases.
As there have been no more updates for 6.0 CE for quite a while, I'm recommending to upgrade though (other than #FeinesFabi in the comment). If you want to have a long-term stable platform that you don't need to maintain for yourself, EE would be the way to go (supported for ~7 years after release)
For ext changes, you'll have to be aware that there are no guarantees: Ext allows you to change the inner implementation of Liferay, and that's what nobody strives to keep stable, even in minor updates. If you're using ext, you'll always have to be aware of incompatible changes. Ext allows you to keep your changes out of the official sourcecode - so they're well isolated. It doesn't say anything about the underlying implementation to be stable. With great power (ext) comes great responsibility. Keep your ext as small as possible - whatever you can do outside of ext should be done outside and use the public API.
The basic upgrade path (for Liferay itself, not your plugins) is quite well documented in the User's Guide.
I have a hosted page on Microsoft Azure Web Sites (Shared) and have verified that PHP is enabled and working but I am not able to call PHP in an .html document. Is there any way to enable this?
Searched high and low on this one, sorry if it is a duplicate.
This drove me nuts too, documentation in so many areas is poor. I had the same problem last week.
Here is the fix:
On the management console of the site, under configure, scroll to Handler Mappings.
In handler mappings, in the first box, type *.html
In the second box type D:\Program Files (x86)\PHP\v5.4\php-cgi.exe
Save, then restart the instance. It will now process PHP inside HTML files.
One small thing, which I didn't realise till after as well. I instantly assumed, 5.5 is the latest and greatest, so why wouldn't I just update to 5.5 and use that engine. You can, and changing the folder structure to read 5.5 works, however the 5.5 build on Azure doesn't have PDO for SQL Server which makes connecting to a native SQL database a nightmare. So 5.4 is the best build IMO until they include that as well.
Hope this helps.
EDIT: Not sure if this is applicable to shared, I am using a small instance, but logic should be the same I would have thought.
The project I’m working on is revamping an existing web portal.
Migration from the old controls (Infragistics) to a new suite (Telerik) is part of the revamp.
Would you recommend to keep the old Visual studio project and put the new controls in or starting a new VS project altogether?
It depends on how much you are using the third party controls and what portion of your site it is. If it is a small portion it may be better to continue with the existing project. If you have very heavy usage of the third party controls that you are removing on each page a rewrite may be easier.
If you are looking at possibly rewriting using a new project you may also want to consider the technology that you are using as well. For example if you were using ASP.NET Web Forms before, maybe it would make sense to use ASP.NET MVC now.
I believe the best answer to your question is that you need to evaluate what you are using and the amount of work that each approach will require and determine what is best for your specific scenario.