For some time I have been looking at the possibility to integrate PowerShell as a scripting engine in SharePoint but I haven't found the right solution yet.
My main objective is to enable event triggers in e.g. a list to call and execute a PowerShell script (by filename) on the local server. This would give me a lot of flexibility compared to using an ordinary event handler written in visual studio, but the question is whether it is possible and whether I have overlooked some serious security issues?
Since each and every unique idea that I come up with in many years have already be invented by somebody else, I might have missed an existing product/project so any links to such projects will be appreciated, thanks
In the spirit of "already being invented by somebody else", check out http://www.codeplex.com/iLoveSharePoint for some very interesting uses of PowerShell inside SharePoint. Some great code samples and documentation. Haven't tried myself yet, but seems interesting.
I see what you're trying to achieve, but there's something that just doesn't "feel right" about a user indirectly running script code on your server.
The key difference is that the script can be run by anyone logging into the server. Event handlers can only be run by SharePoint. Strict validation of any inputs would be essential. You should also ensure the script is signed so tampered scripts won't execute.
Also, scripts by their nature aren't really designed for enterprise solutions. There is less opportunity for best practices such as good software architecture, design patterns, source control, code analysis, unit testing, and reuse of code. It's also messy/difficult to share code with a common code base that contains web parts, controls, entities, etc.
Finally, introducing PowerShell means another technology to be maintained in the mix we already have with SharePoint. This might be OK if you are comfortable with it.
Depending on how much customisation has already been done or is planned for the future some of the points above may not matter. Be sure to think about how this idea would feel if implemented 6, 12 and 24 months down the track.
Related
I will soon be developing an application to log and priorities worker shifts. It only needs to be small, and simple, but I am wondering what framework to use. All that needs to happen is boxes with names are in 3 lists, and the user can switch these around at will. It must log the times, which I will need access to in real time.
Im new to application development of this sort, and would like any suggestions. I have time to learn new technologies / languages.
Portability / device independence would also be useful. Should I consider a Web Application in Javascript? or something more like Python.
Thanks.
Even if your application is going to be simple that does not mean that whole system will be simple too. I can imagine that your app will serve only as a front end to something much bigger. If that is a case and you really have freedom to choose what language you will develop your app with consider choosing something that you will feel comfortable to work with. But before you will make your decision I would go to whoever gave you that task and try to get as much information about it as you can because expected features can help in choosing technology.
First of all, it seems that it is up to you to decide if it should be web or desktop app. In my opinion it is completely wrong situation. You should get clear requirements on what kind of application customer expects and in what environment it should work. And I would not move a finger towards a code before somebody gave me that information. You write that portability and device independence would be useful but is it actual requirement or you just think it would be nice feature to deliver?
EDITED (to answer a question in comment)
Probably there is as much possible solutions as people that would answer you so in the end you will have to make your own choices.
One way of doing it (considering that you want to learn something new and have a challenge :) would be implement WCF service that would act as a data provider from your database (so every GetUsers(), GetVacationDays() methods would be in it) and it would take care of some business logic (for example CalculateMaxValidWorkingTime() or whatever). That service would be a real power horse of your system. Since you don't have clear requirement whether it should be desktop or web app you could satisfy both possibilities by creating thin clients that would communicate with your service and they would be just a pretty front ends. And if you keep in mind that you can consume webservices practically with everything from C++ to .NET (C#/VB) to Javascript to Python to PHP after you done with service you would not be constrained with one particular technology/language.
Regarding databases I won't advice because personally I hate dealing with them and it always was somebody else's task to provide me with pretty API :)
this is kind of an open question: I'm trying to define for a team a set of recommended practices for delivering a SharePoint solution in stages. That means, changes will happen at every level (solution, feature, web part, content types, etc).
On your experience, which are the practices that really, really, worked for you guys? For ex. using upgrade custom actions, placing upgrade logic entirely on FeatureUprading event handlers? Or in FeatureActiving handlers and assume features could already exist? Else?
I'm asking because I know of projects that follow The Word on this from many MSDN articles and still, upgrades are kind of nightmarish to manage, and those processes are sometimes difficult to grasp for average devs.
Thanks!
As no one else has ventured an answer, my current approach is:
Use the declarative approach for those cases where it works 100% of the time e.g. NOT content types
Fall back to code for the rest
Always write the related code so that it can be run multiple times against either the pre- or post-upgrade state
Is there a way of offering the flexibility of Excel/Access development that end users love while instilling centralised IT management so data and logic is secure, backed up, version controlled etc. The common options are to re-write in C#/ASP.Net/Java/Python/Your Choice, but that takes away control from the users. Is there a better way, and what do you do at your site?
There is a universal issue of users creating fantastically useful Excel/Access mini-apps that the IT department would like to bring under control. Users love the flexibility that Excel affords, especially on the fly changes, graphing and data import/export. In Access we have brilliant QBE. The downside is that after a short while there are legions of out of control spreadsheets/mdbs which are mission critical, with lots poorly understood business logic, and brittle code, they're a pain to support especially as staff move on.
This puts the IT dept in an awkward spot, they'd like to support these apps, but don't know enough about them. This is made more difficult as they are typically insecure with zero documentation.
Having been of both sides of the fence I would go after the root cause of the problem. Why do uses make their own little apps? Because it is too hard/expensive/time consuming/never turns out right when they go through the “proper” channels.
The other thing is they tend to know the business very well so whilst their coding might not be very good their knowledge of what needs doing is very good.
So what can we do to combat this problem? I personally think their should be a small team of people within IT whose job (or one of their jobs) is to develop these small applications. They should work very closely with the end users and not be locked in the ivory tower of IT.
In my current role I’m on the non-IT side of the fence, I have a few quite major applications that needed to be developed so I asked for an install of visual studio and some space on an SQL server. I had my request denied. So I just asked for SQL server space, again request denied (each request taking about a week to go through) So in the end I’m “stuck” in access.
Now these are very nice access apps with version control, comments in the (shock!) and all the other nice things but at the end of the day I was trying to do things the “right” way and ended up being forced down the access route. So when my apps try to get scaled up and I’m quoting a long time for a rewrite who is to blame?
Have you considered looking at SharePoint for department-level applications? Many professional developers will balk at the idea of using Sharepoint for "application development," but it truthfully can be a great way for "power users" to start putting their data and tools in a managed framework.
With SharePoint, you can manage the overall structure of the site and then set up users with elevated permissions within their respective departments. There are some great 3rd-party tools to help with keeping an eye on what's going on in your SharePoint site.
SharePoint is not a silver bullet by any means, but it is great for many multi-user applicatinos that need to keep up with a list of data.
(The following is not really related to my above answer, but your question really hit home and I thought I'd share my similar experiences and insights.)
Our company will be going through a similar process in the near future. I'm on the "end user" side of things and can sympathize with a lot of what Kevin Ross said. Sometimes Access and Excel are simply the best tools available for me to get the job done.
Here's an example: I was asked several years ago to come up with a system for creating Purchase Orders to a vendor in China for product for which there is a 3 month lead time. Our ERP software had a few features for procurement, but nothing that even came close to the complexity of the situation we were facing. Years later, after going through several iterations of the application in Excel (VLOOKUP was a lifesaver), Access ("So that is why people using relational databases. Awesome!), and back in Excel ("let's not make this so complicated"), I still find that these Micorosft Office apps are the best tools to get the job done.
What's the cost to not use these tools to get the job done?
Contract work to our ERP vendor to add a special feature for this ordering process: are you kidding me? We'd likely pay tens of thousands of dollars for an unflexible monolithic application with horrendous user experience...and we would still end up back in Excel.
Buy third party software designed for this exact process: I've seen an on-site demo of software that does exactly what I want for our procurement process. It starts at $100,000. There are probably other tools that we can get for a few thousand dollars, but at that price point, I've already emulated most of their features in my own application.
Try to finish the job "by hand." : Ha! I'm a programmer at heart, which means I'm lazy. If it takes a solid week of sitting at a desk to work up a purchase order (it actually did take this long), you can bet I'm going to work up a solution so that it only takes me a few hours (and now it does). Perhaps the guy after me will go back to doing most of it by hand, but I'll use the tools in my toolbox to save myself time and stress.
It's so hard to find the perfect application to allow for maximum creativity on the user end but still allow IT to "manage" it. Once you think you've found a solution for one thing, you realize it doesn't do something else. Can I write I printable report in this solution like I used to do in Access? Can I write complicated Excel formulas that tie multiple data sources together from different sheets ("You want me to learn what? No, I've never heard of a "SQuirreL query" before. VLOOKUP is just fine thankyouvermuch)? Can I e-mail the results to the people in my department? Can it automatically pull data from our back-end database like I do in Excel and Access? Can I write my own code, VBA or otherwise, to make my job easier? The list goes on.
In the end, the best advice I can give to any IT manager in your situation is to respect the other workers at your company. Let them know their work is important (even if it's only useful to them and the guy at the next desk over). Let them know you are not trying to make their job harder. Don't assume they are morons for creating mission-critical applications in office productivity software; they are just trying to get the job done with the tools at hand and are usually quite capable and intelligent people. Invite them to explore different solutions with you instead of just removing the tools they currently have in their toolbox and then replacing them with ones they don't know how to use.
At the end of the day, if you have users who are smart enough to shoot themselves in the foot by creating complicated apps in Excel and Access, they are probably smart enough to learn to use the appropriate tools to accomplish the same tasks. Invest the time and energy to involve them in the process and you will have a solution that works for everyone at the end.
You could try a hybrid approach: Allow your users to use Excel/Access to home-brew their own, specialized tools, but take the mission-critical stuff and put it under IT control. There are a few strategies that could help you with this:
Make sure that your IT department is firm on VBA. Not the "yeah-everybody-can-write-a-few-lines-of-basic" type of knowledge, but in-depth training, just like you would if it were a less simple programming language. Although "real programmers" will tell you otherwise, it is possible to write large, stable applications in VBA.
If you currently have the data in Access databases, move away from that and migrate it to an SQL Server. This allows you to do centralized backup and management, while still giving your power users the flexibility to "link" these SQL Server tables to their Access frontend.
Commonly used business logic should be under control of your IT department. This can be done either with VBA, by creating an Access library that is linked by your users, or in any of the .net languages, using COM interop. The latter sounds more complicated than it is, and it will increase the satisfaction of your IT department, since developing in .net is just much more rewarding than VBA (version control possible, etc.).
I would second one of Kevin Ross's main points:
I personally think their should be a
small team of people within IT whose
job (or one of their jobs) is to
develop these small applications. They
should work very closely with the end
users and not be locked in the ivory
tower of IT.
I think any IT department that has a lot of users using Access/Excel should have at least one properly trained and experienced specialist in developing apps on those platforms. That person would be the go-between to make sure that:
IT's priorities and policies get properly implemented in the home-grown apps.
the end users get expert help in converting their home-grown efforts into something more stable and well-designed.
I would second Tony's point that whoever works with the end users in revising these apps to meet IT standards should work side-by-side with the users. The Access/Excel specialist should be an advocate for the end users, but also for the IT policies that have to be followed.
I also think that an IT department could have a specialist or two on staff, but should also have a full-time professional Access and/or Excel developer as a consultant, since the on-staff people could probably handle day-to-day issues and management of the apps, while the professional consultant could be called in for planning and architecture and for the implementation of more complex feature sets.
But all of that would depend on the size of the organization and the number of apps involved. I don't know that it would be desirable to have someone on salary who is nothing but an Access/Excel specialist, precisely because of the problem you get with all salaried employees compared to consultants -- the employees don't see as wide a variety of situations as an active consultant with the same specialization is likely to see and thus the consultant is going to have broader experience.
Of course, I recognize that many companies do not like to outsource anything, or not something that important. I think that's unwise, but then again, I'm the person that gets hired by the people who decide to do it!
If it's mission critical, and it's in Access or Excel, is built poorly, and no one understands it, it is probably time to rebuild it properly.
When the 'users' are in control it usual means one particular person is in control of the architecture, design, coding and documentation... except they normally omit the documentation step. Source control and bug reporting, the touchstone of software development, is usually absent. Few instances of code reuse, due to the nature of Office apps (code modules usually embedded into documents) and VBA (little OOP, most VBA coders don't use Implements, etc). All this means that the resulting applications are not subject to get proper scrutiny and quality can suffer, meaning there are likely to be maintenace issues, escpecially when that one user leaves. I know because I used to be that person ;)
So in order to satisfy the IT department, the proper process needs to be applied. That one 'power' user can continue to own the design and coding but will get peer review, perhaps the serivces of a technical author and a dedicated tester, be required to use source control, perhaps consider integrating with enterprise systems, etc.
There is no getting around the use of Excel/Access. It's what's available, and still very powerful and flexible. The best thing to do is offer some guidelines as to how files should look and be set up. If everyone is using similar standards then the files will live longer and more productive lives, beyond the creator's tenure at the company.
You've got some excellent answers regarding dealing with the folks and the business side of things. So my response will be more technical.
If you are going to redesign the app have the developers work in the same offices as the users. Given the users updates every day or two. If the users have any minor suggestions give those to the users within a day or two. Ultra Frequent Application Deployment
Give the power users an Access MDB/ACCDB linked to the tables with a bunch of starter queries. Let them create the queries they need to export the data to Excel for their own purposes and distribution to clients.
Weird question, perhaps. We have a number of simple utilities written in-house that need to be run on an automated basis. These are not build jobs. Just things like running SendOutHourlyEmailAlarms.exe, KeepFoldersInSynch.exe and such. I would normally set these things up as simple scheduled tasks/AT commands (or a Windows Service if more granular control is needed over the scheduling), but a co-worker has set up a number of these tasks as build projects on the CruiseControl.NET server. I asked him why he set these up this way and his response was that the executions (and their logs, return values, thrown exceptions) were all tracked and logged and that this information was accessible through an organized interface on the build server website. I couldn't argue with this.
But this just has a smell that I can't quite identify. Is this a proper use of CruiseControl.NET? If not, what are the dangers? Even if it may fit the bill, aren't there other products better suited for this type of thing?
We have all sorts of non-build related tasks for the exact same reason as your coworker had, I want one spot to look up any and all jobs I need run.
Some Examples of our CC.NET projects:
FTP installers to Remote QA
Creating Source Code Documentation
Create VM's with the installers
installed for QA in the morning
Archiving Installers
Pretty much anything I have to do by hand more than once, becomes a project. IMHO it is much better than a scheduled task for one other reason as well. Our config files are in source control, so we have 1 place to make adjustments. We do not have to log into multiple servers and make adjustments or wonder which server did that.
I think your coworker has made a good argument. If these tasks are related to the development process, then placing them in CruesControl.Net as a project seems acceptable. I would draw the line at utilizing a development server to run production processes though. Although it is true that "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail," it doesn't mean that the hammer isn't capable of solving a lot of problems!
Just because a tool is designed to solve a particular problem does not mean that it will not have equal facility at solving similar problems outside the scope originally concieved by the tool creator. If CruiseControl.NET solves these problems well, then it is absolutely the appropriate tool to use.
In my organisation, we have some very inefficient processes around managing requirements, tracking what was actually delivered on what versions, etc, do subsequent releases break previous functionality, etc - its currently all managed manually. The requirements are spread over several documents and issue trackers, and the implementation details is in code in subversion, Jira, TestLink. I'm trying to put together a system that consolidates the requirements info, so that it is sourced from a single, authoritative source, is accessible via standard interfaces - web services, browsers, etc, and can be automatically validated against. The actual domain knowledge is not that complicated but is highly proprietary and non-standard (i.e., not just customers with addresses, emails, etc), and is relational: customers have certain functionalities, features switched on/off, specific datasources hooked up - all on specific versions. So modelling this should be straightforward.
Can anyone advise the best approach for this - I a certain that I can develop a system from scratch that matches exactly the requirements, in say ruby on rails, grails, or some RAD framework. But I'm having difficulty getting management buy-in, they would feel safer with an off the shelf solution.
Can anyone recommend such a system? Or am I better off building it from scratch, as I feel I am? I'm afraid a bought system would take just as long to deploy, and would not meet our requirements.
Thanks for any advice.
I believe that you are describing two different problems. The first is getting everyone to standardize and the second is selecting a good tool for requirements management. I wouldn't worry so much about the tool as I would the process and the people. Having the best tool in the world won't help if your various project managers don't want to share.
So, my suggestion is to start simple. Grab Redmine or Trac and take on the challenge of getting everyone to standardize. Once you have everyone in the right mindset then you can improve the tools you use for storage.
{disclaimer - mentioning my employer's product}
The brief experiments I made with a commercial tool RequisitePro seemed pretty good me. Allowed one to annotate existing Word docs and create a real-time linked database of the identified requisistes then perform lots of analysis and tracking of them.
Sometimes when I see a commercial product I think "Oh, well nice glossy bits but the fundamentals I could knock up in Perl in a weekend." That's not the case with this stuff. I would certainly look at commercial products in this space and exeperiment with a couple (ReqPro has a free trial, I guess the competition will too) before spending time on my own development.
Thanks a mill for the reply. I will take a look at RequisitePro, at least I'll be following the "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" strategy ;) youre right, and I kinda knew it, in these situations, buy is better. It is tempting when I can visualise throwing it together quickly, but theres other tradeoffs and risks with that approach.
Thanks,
Justin
While Requisite Pro enforces a standard and that can certainly help you in your task, I'd certainly second Mark on trying to standardize the input by agreement with personnel and using a more flexible tool like Trac, Redmine (which both have incredibly fast deploy and setup times, especially if you host them from a VM) or even a custom one if you can get the management to endorse your project.