BinaryJam

Whilst messing with a product some contractor of ours did for us (SURJIT I’m talking about you).  I discovered a lovely piece of code.

The SiteDef had some SiteProvisioning code, it read an XML file to do additional processes as part of the site provisioning, rather handy in some cases.

But I did notice a few oddities.

In SiteProv he was creating lists.  Also He was copying files from the file system into Lists.  Some users just don’t have access to this part of the file system and this was exploding.

Two things about this technique,

• 1st. You can Provision Lists in the ONET.
• 2nd You can copy files into lists in the ONET.

The first item he should have known, so WHY do it as part of site provisioning event ?  I don’t know. Perhaps something to do with sequence, perhaps stupidity .

Second I can forgive, someone not trained in SharePoint might not know exactly what the <Module> Tag is really for.

Think of the <Module> tag in Features and SiteDefs as a kind of File copy as well as configuring what webparts go where on a page, it can copy files from the file system into a DocLibrary, but most importantly it has the correct rights to do it.

Some extra info on ONET’s and Modules.

From all the examples you have seen in existing SiteDefs the most likely arrangement would be something like this

Read more…

Just a silly one.

I’ve decided to call the WSP solution packages for WSS, Wasps.

It really appeals to me that I can send our support department a bunch of wasps.

There’s some special secret code they don’t tell you about whenever something doesn’t work.

You change a list or a web or something and nothings happens.

It’s called the Update() method.  Sshhhhh don’t tell anyone.

Is it me ?  Have I missed something ? Are STP’s the best thing on the planet for quickly creating SharePoint sites ?

Or is it as I believe the biggest pain in the backside for SharePoint developers to pick up someone else’s SharePoint project to make changes to the site definition pages only to discover they were hacked together in the interface saved as an STP and included in your project.

This is now the case for me on two of my inherited projects, I hate them.  Now I know that if you create standard site templates with an onet etc, once created, there are elements of the definition that are now content and would have be be manipulated via the API to change them (or interface). But consider if you have a problem and are searching in a HUGE project for where your specific list might be or other such content, can you find in in Studio by searching ? No you can’t cos it’s all cabbed up in a file.

So my advice to anyone even considering using STP’s, think again are you doing it cos it’s quick and your a contractor soon to leave the company anyway so what the hell, or are you a developer who might have to make changes and maintain your project.  Seriously think twice, is this the best way to develop this solution, is there some advantage to an STP over a site def ? think before you start hacking away.

Well what a great gotcha I had today.  I have a WSS application you know custom list templates, event receivers web parts, everything you can think of except workflow.

So I have an upgrade for this, its a new dll and feature files.  I use a build server that can automatically update the AssemblyVersion and automatically edit the dwp aspx ascx files etc to set the version number of the build, its very slick.

Forgetting one thing.  SharePoint has never liked Version numbers. So I applied the update and my webpart fails with safe control errors. 

I forgot when you add the webparts it copies the dwp complete with version number into the content database and I just uninstalled that DLL. DOH! 

After figuring this out with the help of Captain Literal.Net, I stopped my build auto updating the versions and grepping the files etc.  It still marks the file version number to help the support guys but not the AssemblyInfo DLL versions now.

According to the Cap’n its not just the webpart dwp’s but lots of other features (small F)  that don’t like changes to AssemblyVersions, in fact there is code in SharePoint that deliberately IGNORES policy files.

So there you have it, again Versioning is a bit dodge in Scarepoint. Choose when to do it and know what the effects will be.  And don’t forget to take those *’s  (stars) out of the AssemblyVersion attributes and FIX it to 1.0.0.0.

However you can change the Feature.XML file and change the Feature versions this doesn’t have any effect that we have noticed.

Im thinking of throwing together a feature that reads all installed features (hidden or not) and displays the details like title, description and version.

This is just a quick note to ask the question

Are you using Powershell when developing your WSS application ?

Cos if your not your missing a trick.

Read more…

Last night with tons of advertising and announcements (I don’t think), the first series of Being Human snuck its way onto the schedules.

Well done BBC for finally getting there with this series.

I’d love to tell you how good or bad it was but due to the marvelous media campaign I missed it, I stumbled across it half way through the episode where I managed to see all the characters and the new actors playing two of them. 

Like I say I missed it so I wonder how the new actors will fit, if at all, the characters we were introduced to.  I do have doubts about the ghost, far to attractive and very removed from the pilot character, who I absolutely loved.  Is this a real improvement to help the story or just eye candy to keep part of the male audience who struggle with plots engaged.  I don’t doubt the young ladies ability she seemed very good but its not the funny, kooky plain northern lass obsessed with making tea entrenched in routine to cope with her death and being tied to the house.

Anyone who did watch, what do you think ? Does it measure up to the pilot ?

Anyway, I can be thankful for iPlayer and will watch all of it tonight.

Other than a chest infection, which was quite bad and making me very sick monday morning, enough to take a day sick and the last resort book a doctors appointment, I thought it’s not that bad, after all I have a job at the moment, I don’t spend what I don’t have (usually) so I’m not in huge credit card debt, I get paid early in the month too.  So not much to worry about at all.

Till I got out of bed.  I phoned work to let them know I was sick and also off to the quacks.  I booked the appointment at the doctors, and got a good slot 9.50am unheard of.  Apart from the retching cough things were looking up the prospect of being cured and getting back to normal.

Then the phone rings.  Childminder, can’t have little’un today our ceiling is leaking.  So that messes up the wife’s morning.  Still I can watch him while off sick, all I have to do is lie on the floor to be at his level and play with his toys with him shouldn’t be too taxing, at least I’m in the warm and getting better.

Get in car to go to doctors, turn key, "whheeeeeeeeeee", "Wheeeeeeee". Damn. Starter motor.

Come back from docs, biotics to cure, maybe, its amoxicillin which hardly ever works for me, and as it should start working feel free to go back to work, I like my job so not too bad, but what about the car ? I wonder. 

Get garage to come get car, should be about 190 quid mate.  I’ll phone you later.

One exhausting day saying, get down, don’t touch, chest feels better though, ring ring.

"Got some bad news mate", "You’re fly wheel is damaged and sent bits flying into starter motor, we can replace it but won’t warranty it and that’s 250 quid or we do it properly new clutch, new flywheel and new motor £960, but your rear sub frame bushes although need doing we can leave them for a bit longer" , "Ok then", "Oh and it won’t be done till wednesday".

So blue Monday got its revenge on me, big bill to come, no savings to pay it, credit card gonna take a hit. 

Tues. So I’m here at work after an hours drive in freezing weather with icy roads on my motorbike. My legs are still cold.  But the cough is getting better at least and I got some interesting Sharepoint work to do, and Ashleigh has figured out whats wrong with my media pc, so at least I can cancel "Sky" to help pay for the damn car.  Gotta look on the bright side I suppose.

Was that a bit harsh ?  Perhaps but sometimes it’s how I feel about Sharepoint, for five years now.

I’ve been scratching my head this morning.  I have some list templates as part of my feature that I have defined and I don’t want anyone to be able to create them again once the ListInstance is there.

So as part of my manifest file I have the following.

<ListTemplate Name="JamList" DisplayName="JamList" Type="51003"
                Description="JamList" BaseType="0" Hidden="true"
                OnQuickLaunch="false" SecurityBits="11" AllowDeletion ="false">

Yet the damn thing keeps showing up on the create lists page and it shouldn’t.  Well according to the wss.xsd schema file this is a valid attribute and value yet it doesn’t work.

Read more…

Whilst developing an app for wss3/moss I had some trouble and I thought I’d share it.

One of the great things about new sharepoint is Delegate controls.  If in your masterpage or other page you have a SharepointDelegateControl in there you can plonk your own replacement version in there.  There are essentially placeholders for you to use for branding.

Now when I develop for wss I separate everything into various folders and name them appropriately usually in a namespace Style.

e.g.

My Feature could be called   BinaryJam.MyApplication

Read more…