I have a rather large project developed on Sharepoint and Project Server, designed as a multi-tier application. I programmatically manage web parts on certain web part pages. According to the choices of the user in one of the web pages, appropriate web parts are added to the web part collection of another web part page. My problem is that I simply do no know where to manage the web parts, should I do it in the BLL and then have the assembly containing the business logic reference the UI assembly where the web parts are? (I need to instantiate the web parts when adding them to the collection, since I do not want to use hard coded strings representing the web part dwp.)
It really depends on what pattern you're using for your BLL and UI layers, and how strictly you want to follow it.
If you're doing a MVP pattern then I'd suggest that you have the Page implementing an interface which has one (or more) of the following options:
A stack which the Presenters to load are added to
A Load_WebPartName event for each web part which then should be called to indicate which webpart(s) need loading
To be strictly MVP you should not reference the following assemblies in your BLL project:
System.Web
Microsoft.SharePoint
Microsoft.SharePoint.*
(All SharePoint assemblies would be in either the Model or UI projects, the BLL is just connecting to the appropriate hocks)
Can you package the web parts as a feature or set of features and then simply manage the feature(s) activation/deactivation through the web part manager class?
Any programmatic massaging of the web part that needs to happen on the appropriate web part page can be handled in the feature receiver, so your manager doesn't need to be so aware of the web part UI.
HTH,
jt
Web parts are generally best managed using the feature/solution framework. You may treat the webpart classes you write as any other web control, and thus a part of the ui layer. I generally keep the information in the xml files (the .webpart or .aspx files) to a minimum. If you are managing them exclusively, you don't really need to use declarative code files at all.
The short answer: webparts are sharepoint specific ui, and should have no knowledge of the business layer.
The short answer is probably "no, you should not do this in the BLL." A purist might argue that while the BLL may rightfully determine what a user can or can't do, it is up to the UI tier to determine the appropriate web parts to be displayed as a result.
For example, the BLL might determine a user's capabilities and expose them as roles, or permissions or something else with domain-related meaning (e.g. timesheet approver role, approve timesheet permission, etc.). These might then be mapped to a set of web parts by the UI tier (e.g. timesheet approval web part). In this way, the BLL effectively determines the users capabilities and the UI tier determines the UI for those capabilities.
Related
A client's employee base is struggling with using sharepoint UI as an interface. As a result the client is evaluating the option of building a custom UI on top of sharepoint to provide a better user experience; [The other option being to move away completely from sharepoint (non trivial, high cost option)]
My research indicates that you can customize the UI look and feel (but the client is looking for much more).
Another option appears to be to change/improve the experience by building PowerApps
The option I have been trying to assess,is to see if sharepoint provides adequate set of APIs/integration interfaces that allows the user to build a completely independent UI and user experience. Its effort intensive ofcourse, and feels like reinventing the wheel, and am wondering about whether others have faced similar UX callenges, and what possible solutions they might have evaluated, and path they have gone ahead with.
Under the covers, SharePoint is a SQL database and a collection of .NET classes that define each SharePoint object: SPWeb, SPSite, SPWeb, SPList, SPUser list item, document etc. Most of these objects are exposed via web services. Microsoft then built an IIS/ASP.NET based UI for the out of box user experience. There are mobile apps that are not browser based that call the SharePoint REST services to read and update lists and libraries. If you wanted to, you could built your own complete UI based on just about any technology. Is it worth it? Probably not. There are many customization options available, depending on your version of SharePoint.
(If I could post comments... :-) I would then ask: Tell us more about what the users need in the UI that is not supplied by out of the box SharePoint.)
I'm just learning how to develop an application for Sharepoint.
As far as I can see there are three types of integration into Sharepoint possible:
Sandboxed Solution (limited resource access but easy to install etc)
Farm Solution (installation only available from administrator)
Standard application (maybe .net MVC) with referencing the Sharepoint assembly to access the SPS functionality
Is that correct and complete or am I missing something?
There are quite a few ways to develop for SharePoint depending on your scope, requirements, etc. My knowledge is more in the SP2007 realm than 2010 and my answer reflects that.
JavaScript
Using Content Editor Web Parts you can customize the look of SharePoint, interact with List Data and do some interesting UI effects just using jQuery and the SPServices Plugin. These solutions don't require package and deployment.
Custom Content Type
These can be created through the SharePoint UI or defined through custom XML documents and deployed via WSP. Essentially these are just a collection of field definitions that are related in some logical way. Content types can be added to a list to have all the fields automatically available. In addition, they provide a convenient way of mixing and matching data in the same list (think of roll-ups or backing up list data) though I've never used them in this way.
Event Receiver
Event Receivers can be created to respond to specific events in SharePoint. If you attach an Event Receiver to a list, you can listen for and respond to events like an item or attachment being added, updated, deleted in both a synchronous (-ing) fashion - so you can implement validation and cancel the operation - or asynchronously (-ed) - to do some post-processing once SharePoint is done processing the item. Event Receivers are processed by the Front-End SharePoint server which handled the request which triggered the event. This is different than Timer Jobs and Workflows which are executed by any server in the farm that happens to be available.
Further, Event Receivers can be attached to lists based on their type (apply to all lists of this ID type) or they can be associated with a Content Type and become associated with a list that way (when the content type is added to the list, so too is the event receiver added).
Feature Receivers are a special kind of Event Receiver in that they respond to a Feature
being activated or deactivated to do some additional work. Many people refer to this extra work as Feature Stapling since it lets you perform additional tasks on-demand that couldn't otherwise be done using just XML documents.
Timer Job
A Timer Job is a piece of code that is run on a schedule. It's not executed in the W3WP process like Event Receivers are but rather via the TimerService. Because of this, certain features or values are missing from the SPRequest object. Developing Timer Jobs is more difficult and, in practice, more error prone, more difficult to debug, etc. than Event Receivers.
Workflow
Workflows can be created using SharePoint Designer or Visual Studio. The major difference between these are features available to you at design time. SharePoint Designer Workflows are easier to create and get going but tend to be buggy in SharePoint 2007. Further they are not easily packaged and deployed across environments but rather are associated directly to the list in which you created them (in 2007; in 2010 there is extended capability to allow packaging or even migration into Visual Studio for more complicated customization).
Using Visual Studio gives you more depth and capability but like Timer Jobs they are often difficult to "get right" and they are also processed by the Timer Service process.
Web Part
A custom Web Part is very similar to a regular ASP.NET web part with some extended capability within the SharePoint context. You have access to the SPRequest object and thus all the contextual information (current user, current list/web/site, etc.) to do your work. You can access external databases, make use of most ASP.NET controls, etc.
Custom ASPX Page
If a Web Part isn't sufficient for your needs or you want control over the full page, you can create SharePoint-enabled web pages. These are standard ASP.NET pages decorated with the proper SharePoint master page and deployed into a subdirectory of the hive LAYOUTS directory. With this you have similar access to the current request state as with a Web Part but you have more control over the entire page render.
Custom Web Application
If you have need for a standalone application, you can still take advantage of SharePoint's authentication and authorization tools without running directly in its context. To do this, create an IIS Web Application and set the Application Pool Identity to the same as SharePoint. Alternatively you could make a virtual directory within your SharePoint application pool but this is generally not recommended. You will still be constrained to using the .NET Framework 2.0 runtime if you want to use the SharePoint Object Model at all. This setup seems rarely used in the field since most of the time you can accomplish your needs by just using custom ASPX pages or web parts.
Regarding your specific questions:
Sandboxed solutions are just a special type of solution that restricts the namespaces your web part, etc. have access to. For instance your code can't reach out to access lists outside of its permission area. It can't send email on your behalf. You can increase your rights by using custom permission sets but this is an advanced topic. I just wanted to point out "sandboxed solution" isn't a type in and of itself, it just describes a restriction where previously none existed (SP 2007 GAC-deployed solutions).
Regarding your question regarding an MVC application using the SharePoint Object Model, like I mentioned you are still restricted to running in .NET 2.0 runtime.
EDIT: I forgot (at least) one more option!
List Service / Other ASMX Services
SharePoint has a number of web services you can consume to interact with Lists among other things. In this case, your application can be developed using any technology (or runtime!) you wish as long as it knows how to consume the ASMX services. The functionality available isn't as rich as using the Object Model directly (which is why I often forget to consider it) but it does allow your code to be more decoupled from the SharePoint environment itself. In 2010 there are a lot more options for Client Services to provide even greater functionality.
For developing a solution in visual studio you can go for Sandbox solution and farm solution. If you are having SharePoint 2013, then you will have another better option which is App Part development.
Since Sandbox solution is depricated from SharePoint 2013 onwards, i suggest you should not go with Sandbox solutions. Better to go with App Part development.
We currently have a fully developed web forms application, basically its like WordPress using .net for multiple users to publish content. It does more than that but thats the simplest way to describe it. Our "webmasters" (I work in the gov) want everything put inside of SharePoint. We currently have SharePoint 2007. I have no experience developing within SharePoint so I don't know much about it.
My question is how do you decide when to develop your application in SharePoint and when to develop outside of it.
It depends on several things.
Is there any reason to use SharePoint features (lists for data storage, document libraries with versioning, groups for security, etc.) in your application? If you're just hosting ASP.NET pages within SharePoint but aren't using any of its features, it's not really worth the hassle.
However, if you would be adding the application to an existing SharePoint site, it might still be a good idea. Organizing everything in one place might be more convenient for users than setting up a separate web application.
If it is a requirement to re-architect your application to work with SharePoint, that is one very big reason to develop with SharePoint. Beyond that, the people influencing your architecture decisions may have good reasons of their own.
SharePoint provides security management, search and navigation to name a few relevant pieces to your web puzzle. If you are already creating dynamic web applications in .Net, a lot of what you've learned in the process will apply, but you have some learning to do.
Your orginization is not the only one moving most web applications to SharePoint. If you don't learn it now, you risk getting behind the curve.
You could also just 'show' your existing applications inside of a SharePoint web part (Page Viewer?). That way, your application remains the same, and it is 'shown' inside the SharePoint environment. This is somewhat a hokey solution, but in your particular circumstance, it could be viable considering development time, learning time, and control.
I am building a publicly facing website that does the following.
Users log in.
And then view a list of their customers.
They click on a customer to view their past purchases, order them, change them etc.
This is not a shopping site by the way.
It is a simple look up tool.
Note that none of the data accessed by the website is in anything other than a SQL database - no office documents. Also, the login does not use users Windows credentials on a VPN or something like that.
Typically I would build this using a standard ASP.NET MVC website.
However the client says they want to use Sharepoint.
As I understand it, Sharepoint is used for workflow and websites that are collaboration tools such as the components you can see here http://www.sharepointhosting.com/sharepoint-features.html
Here are my questions:
Would I be right in saying that WSS is completely inappropriate for this task as it comes with an overhead that provides no benefits?
If I had to use it, would I need WSS or MOSS?
If I had to use it, would I be right in saying the site would consist of :
List item
a) Web Parts
b) And a custom site layout. How do I create one of these?
Addendum:The book Professional SharePoint 2007 Web Content Management Development looks like a good start
1.) I agree that SharePoint would be quite inappropriate for this task. A few reasons:
It costs thousands of dollars to license SharePoint for use on the open Internet
SharePoint will use a lot of resources (SQL Server, IIS, Active Directory...) that are unnecessarily demanding for your task
SP will give you very little flexibility to develop a solution in your way -- it sounds like you would need to create a database-connected Web Part in ASP.NET anyway (so that could be entirely independent of SP)
SharePoint has it's place--it can be remarkably helpful as a company's internal document management, intranet, and workflow/approval system--but it is not well suited for custom code nor Internet use.
2.) I believe MOSS would be required for the Internet license (as in the link above).
3.) SP development is not like typical relation database systems (for example, it uses flat, unnormalized tables). If your SQL matched the SharePoint way of thinking, you might be able to connect to your database as an external List using SharePoint Designer. More likely you would need to use Visual Studio to create a custom Web Part in ASP.NET.
Hopefully this'll be a few reasonable arguments you can use to help the customer see how SharePoint is inappropriate for the task... In fact, I expect just the first point (the cost of licensing) will turn them.
You can technically use WSS for this task but MOSS has more features aimed at building public facing websites. The publishing infrastructure comes to mind. It has has the CQWP which enables you to build custom interfaces which perform well in SharePoint. With SharePoint there are potentially challenges around scalability. If you know the platform well then doing something like what you have suggested would be a pretty quick task. If you don't know SharePoint and the underlying system well you could face challenges.
You do not want to approach building the final application with SharePoint Designer. It has behavior which can cause major problems with scalability. You want to create a SharePoint Solution comprising a number of features which can be easily deployed to SharePoint. Going this route does not alleviate performance problems but you are going to be closer to the right solution. You can package up the custom user interface elements as CQWPs or write Web Parts. I personally prefer to write Web Parts.
You do the overall site design in a Master Page. Pages within a site are then inheriting from this. If you have MOSS then you can create what are called publishing pages which contain your Web Parts. These are not available in WSS which is why people recommend against it for public websites.
To decide whether SharePoint (any version) is worth it, you need to find out if they are going to use any of the core features. If everything is going to be custom and you are not going to make use of any workflow or document management features in your deployment then I would stay away. To see whether you want to go further with SharePoint from a development perspective, take a look at the WSS developer labs. I recently ran an intro course at my employer using the materials from that site. They are dated, and need more info on best practices but they provide a quick way for you to dip a toe in the water and decide whether you want to go any further.
1) For the core functionality as you describe it SharePoint isn't going to add anything, BUT if you build it on SharePoints premisses it allows your client to add a lot of functionality outside the core for "free" like:
They can add Content Editor WebParts to pages where they can add descriptions, and messages
They can add lists where the customers can enter requests/comments/... and automatically have new entries mailed to anyone in the organisation subscribing to changes
The functionality you develop can be reused on their intranet
Any future small "web apps" can be included in the same site
...
So all in all unless you have a better framework to use then use SharePoint
2) WSS is all you need for now
3) Your main deliverable for now would be:
a feature with some Site Pages and a few Web Parts
a feature with a custom masterpage and corresponding css
True. Well not inappropriate but it doesn't add anything either.. but maybe in the future?
WSS is enough
You'd need web parts to expose your data, yes. The custom site layout is not necessary. If you want your own look and feel a SharePoint Theme may suffice. Even if you want some real custom layout tweaks you probably don't need a site template but you can get away with using just SharePoint Designer to edit the pages or master page.
We have had SharePoint where I work for a little while now, but we've not done a lot with it. We have an intranet with hundreds of ASP/ASP.Net applications and I'm wondering what kind of things can be done to integrate with SharePoint to make a more seamless environment? We put documentation and production move requests and so on in SharePoint now, but it pretty much feels like it's own separate system rather than an integrated tool on our intranet.
I've searched around to see what other people are doing with SharePoint but I've been finding a lot of useless information.
A great idea for you would be move your most used asp.net apps to run within the SharePoint site. Each app can be added either as a control directly on a pagelayout or integrated into a webpart (use the webpart to load child controls).
This would allow you to use the flexible moss interface to move the asp.net app into a unified information architecture so people can find the app easily.
SharePoint is really easy to roll out something that works, but creating a seamless intranet does require a bit of thinking outside of SharePoint itself (i.e. what should go where, which users need to see what, navigation structure...)
That is really a lot of work and requires lots of input from people outside the IT area.
A typical intranet portal segments functionality by department. Each department will probably have some custom web-based apps that you might have historically implemented in ASP.Net, and linked to from the intranet portal. With sharepoint you can start bringing the useful bits of those custom web-apps in as modular parts, so that the business owner of the portal can have more control as to how information is structured and displayed to his/her users.
Think dashboards, populated with custom metrics that only make sense to individual departments. That's one of the most obvious places to start. HR, accounting, IT, they all have metrics they want to track and display. They all have legacy systems that they might want to correlate information from. All this can be done in reusable web-parts. Since Sharepoint gives the end-user the control over layout, display, audience control, etc, you don't end up reinventing wheels all day.
SharePoint was designed to be a collaboration portal and document repository. If you have other business processes wrapped up in other internal web sites, you may not get much benefit from converting these sites into SharePoint sub-sites.
However, if there is signifcant overlap in your applications (contact lists, inventory, specs, etc.) you may want to make the investment to combine.
If you have InfoPath, you can create online forms. You can share your docs and edit them online. You can start an approvement workflow on these docs. You can create polls. You can create work groups.
Basically SharePoint is a giant and robust document store, but you can do anything what you can do in any ASP.NET web application. You can create e.g. custom workflows to automate business processes. We've worked for several customers to create corporate intranets and sometimes internet sites, so it really works. :)
But sometimes it's very hard to implement the requested features (a lot of workarounds).
Really its an intranet in a box. We pretty much run all of our day to day development tasks off of it. We keep documentation, track defects, manage people's time off etc. You can migrate your asp.net and asp applications to run under the sharepoint site. In the adminstration section you can set up web applications to run under the same site, but outside of sharepoint's control. That would probably help with the "feel" of it being completely seperate.
Sharepoint is really a shift in the way people have to think about web development and that's the key. You're no longer developing a standalone application, you're adding on to an existing framework. I would put it akin to having "silos of data" vs. a centralized database system which houses all the company's data. Once people realize that everything is connected, it will feel more like a seemless integration. My advice is to actively try and create applications in sharepoint and think about how to migrate existing apps on to it.
How about BI and reporting from an ERP?
When we know IE is uncapable to handle a page with 10000 table rows (without pagination)
Many don't realize but the success of a reporting tool depends on the performance of the grid object used - Excel and the SpreadSheet obj from the defunct Office Web Components are still the #1 in user's (accountants, managers, ceo) choice.
I think it depends on your environment. In our environment, we setup each department with their own pages and we use it for basic information, surveys, and the employee's homepage. We've built Google/Live Search and Weather.com widgets and roll RSS feeds using Tim Huer's RSS control.
One thing you can do is to create web parts to provide access to data from existing applications. Initially they could simply be read-only views, but depending on your experience they could be fleshed out to allow writes.
Another idea is to add links between SharePoint and your applications (assuming they're web based); that will at least allow a flow between them.
I haven't done it, but you could also theoretically skin SharePoint to look like the rest of your intranet.
Create libraries
Form libraries, documents libraries, slide libraries
Create standard or custom lists
Standard lists - announcements, tasks, contacts
Custom lists - suppliers, contractors, inventories, orders
Setup secure team discussion areas
Build shared team calendars
Create simple workflow processes on documents and lists