I’m on a project where we need to collect metrics around a function named "Share a Story." The idea is very simple — jekk int tħares lejn artiklu interessanti fuq l-intranet u jridu jaqsmu ma 'xi ħadd, click a link labeled "Share this story" email lill buddy tiegħek.

Aħna lagħbu madwar ma 'formola tad-dwana għal dan il-għan, imma fl-aħħar, sens komun rebaħ il-jum u aħna biss jużaw il-familjari <a href = mailto:…> technique. (<a href mailto:…> huwa ftit sorprendentement robusta ta 'HTML; bħala bonus, dik ir-rabta jwassalni lura għall qodma UNIX tiegħi bniedem jiem paġni; dawk kienu l-jiem!).

Din it-teknika jipprovdi interface kbir għall-utenti finali peress li dawn jiksbu l-użu familjari MS Outlook klijent tagħhom (jew kwalunkwe klijent email li jkunu installati).

Hija tagħmel affarijiet aktar diffiċli fuqna tipi iżviluppatur foqra minħabba li klijent * ukoll * trid tmexxi rapport fil-futur li turi kif spiss stejjer sehem utenti u anke li l-istejjer huma maqsuma aktar spiss.

We whiteboarded a few potential solutions. My favorite is to carbon copy (CC) a SharePoint list. That way, the end user still gets the outlook client while we get to capture the event because we’ll get a copy of the email ourselves. There are some obvious drawbacks. The main problem is that the user could simply blank out or otherwise mangle the CC address. U, we need to manage that event library of emails. We have a scheduled job on the white board responsible for that cleanup.

Jekk għandek xi approċċ għaqlija biex isolvi din il-problema, jekk jogħġbok do tell.

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Follow lili Twitter fi http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin

Kif mitlub u wiegħed, I’ve uploaded my presentation on how to obtain "great" requirements from end users for SharePoint projects and implementations. It’s here: http://cid-1cc1edb3daa9b8aa.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/SharePoint/Paul% 20Galvin% 20Great% 20Requirements.zip

I ppreżentat dan fil-SharePoint Best konferenza Prattiki fil Frar 2009 (www.sharepointbestpractices.com). If you attended the conference, inti ser tirċievi wkoll dan fuq il-DVD konferenza.

The presentation includes a lot of notes with most slides. It’s not just bullet points.

(Ara hawn għal preżentazzjoni oħra tiegħi fuq studju ta 'każ governanza: http://paulgalvin.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!1CC1EDB3DAA9B8AA!3099.entry

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Follow lili Twitter fi http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin

Like many SharePoint consultant types, I’ve been exposed to a lot of SharePoint functionality. Some times, I dive pretty deep. Other times I just notice it as I’m flying by to another set of menu options. One of those is "self-service site creation." I haven’t had a need for it until this week.

Din il-ġimgħa, I need to solve a business problem which I think is going to become more common as companies loosen up and embrace more direct end user control over SharePoint. F'dan il-każ, I’ve designed a site template to support a specific end user community. Folks in this community should be able to create their own sites at will using this template whenever the urge strikes them.

I recalled seeing "self-service site creation" before and I’ve always tucked that away in the back of my head thinking that "self service site creation" is SharePoint lingo meaning, obviously enough, something like "turn me on if you want end users to be able to create sites when they want to."

Allura, I turn it on, try it out and for me, it’s not creating sites. It’s creating site collections. Pretty big difference. That’s not what I want, not at all.

It is possible to let end users create new sub sites via a custom permission level. This is exactly where I would have gone in the first place except that the label "self-service site creation" label deceived me. Via twitter, I learn that it’s deceived others as well 🙂

I’m still working out how to provide a little bit of a more streamlined process while staying purely out of the box, but there’s a definite path to follow. Just don’t get distracted by that label.

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Follow lili Twitter fi http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin

I kienet waħda ta ' 20 jew 30 (jew forsi 100?) membri tal-panel aħħar lejl fil- New York SharePoint Utenti Grupp meeting. Instead of the usual presentation format, din kienet kollha dwar Q&A between the audience and the panel members. Early on, Michael Lotter introdotti me idea ġdida u I riedu jaqsmu.

An audience member described how his company had paid a consultant to write an application for his company. The consultant wrote it as a console application using the SharePoint object model. Bħala riżultat, this meant that the program had to be run on a server in the farm. This meant that anyone that wanted to use the app would have to log onto the server, do the work and log off. Fl-ewwel, dan ma kienx problema, iżda malajr, aktar u aktar (mhux tekniku) users needed to use the utility. His question was (jipparafraża):

"What are my options? I don’t want to keep letting users log directly onto the server, iżda jeħtieġ li l-funzjonalità."

Michael Lotter ssuġġeriet li jiġi kkonfigurat magna virtwali ġdid, join it to the farm as a WFE and let users run the application from there.

This is a pretty stunning idea for me. Generalizing this solution brings to mind the notion of essentially temporary, almost disposable WFE’s. I think it’s a pretty neat concept. This temporary WFE can run a console application that uses the SharePoint object model. You could also use it to run stsadm commands. It doesn’t have to be part of regular local balancing. If it goes down or gets wrecked, you can just spin up a new one. I repeat myself, imma jien biss ngħid li naħseb li hija idea verament pulita.

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Follow lili Twitter fi http://www.twitter.com/pagalvin

Din il-ġimgħa li għaddiet, xi ħadd titressaq mistoqsija dwar il-ħolqien ta 'ambjent SharePoint li jimmaniġġjaw volum pjuttost għoli ta' dokumenti ġodda (10,000 +/- f'dan il-każ). I don’t know much about this, iżda grazzi għal din karta bajda, Inħoss aktar infurmati.

Għalija, dan karta bajda huwa pretty ħafna biss marka ktieb fil-mument, but I did start reading through it and thought I’d highlight my main take-away. SharePoint can be scaled to handle, f'minimu, din it-tagħbija:

• 50k dokumenti ġodda kuljum.
• 10 miljun dokumenti total.

I write the 50k/10MM figures because they are easy enough to remember. As long as you know they are minimums, you won’t get into trouble. The maximums are at least 10 mija ogħla minn dak u ma 'irfinar estremi, possibilment ħafna ogħla.

Grazzi, Mike Walsh, għal darb'oħra għall tiegħu kull ġimgħa WSS aġġornamenti FAQ u korrezzjonijiet wara. If you’re not subscribed to it, għandek taħseb serjament dwar kif isir dan.

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Matul il-ġimgħa li għaddiet, tiegħi kollega and I were doing some work for a client in NYC. We were testing a different aspects of a MOSS implementation using their "standard" workstation jibnu (għall-kuntrarju laptops tagħna). While doing that, aħna dam fis ftit żbalji minn dawn il-passi:

• Tiftaħ dokument kelma SM permezz ta 'twieqi Explorer (li juża WebDAV).
• Tagħmel bidla.
• Ħlief dan.

Aħna daħal li tirrealizza li xi drabi (normalment l-ewwel darba) aħna salvati id-dokument, the save didn’t "stick." Save did not save. We would pull that document back up and our changes simply were not there.

Aħna ma fehmux il-kwistjoni għerq f'dan il-punt, but we figured that we should make sure that the latest MS Office service pack had been installed on that work station. The IT folks went and did that. We went through the test again and we discovered a new problem. When we saved it, aħna issa ltqajna dan l-iżball:

Din id-darba, deher simili kull bidla kienet, fil-fatt, salvat, whether we answered Yes or No to the scripts question.

Aħna finalment kellhom ħarsa lejn l-verżjoni attwali ta 'Uffiċċju u jirriżulta li l-workstation kien għaddej MS Office 2000 b'unità tas-servizz 3 li turi up taħt Help -> About as "Office 2002".

Il-morali ta 'l-istorja: I dejjem se jużaw Office 2003 bħala minimu verżjoni tiegħi uffiċċju linja bażi meta jużaw WebDAV u MOSS.

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

(Għal skopijiet search engine, dan huwa test l-iżball tal-):

Linja: 11807

Char: 2

Error: Għan ma jappoġġax din il-proprjetà jew il-metodu

Kodiċi; 0

URL: http://sharepoint01/DocumentReview/_vti_bin/owssvr.dll?location=Documents/1210/testworddocument.doc&dialogview=SaveForm

Do inti tixtieq li tkompli taħdem skripts fuq din il-paġna?

In one or my very first blog posts, I deskritt-proċess ġenerali aħna segwit biex jemigraw klijent mill SPS 2003 to MOSS. A reader left a comment asking for more detail and here it is.

Għal dak il-proġett migrazzjoni, aħna kellha ssib mod tajjeb biex jimxu ħafna SPS 2003 documents over to MOSS. The initial load was easy enough. Create a new target document library in MOSS and use windows explorer to move the documents.

This is the new document library:

Open up two windows explorers. Point the first at SPS 2003 and the second at the new document library in MOSS. The following screen shot shows this. Note that the top browser is actually pointing at my c:\temp drive, but you can imagine it pointing to an SPS 2003 document library:

After that drag and drop operation, my target looks like this:

Now it’s time to deal with the metadata. Assume we have just one column of metadata for these documents named "location." We can see from the above "all documents" view that the location is blank. It’s easy enough to use a data sheet view to enter the location, or even go into each document’s properties one by one to add a location. Let’s assume that there is no practical way to assign the location column a value automatically and that end users must do this by hand. Barra minn, let’s assume there are hundreds of documents (maybe thousands) and that it will take many many days to update the metadata. As we all know, no one is going to sit down and work for four of five days straight updating meta data for documents. Minflok, they will break that out over a period of weeks or possibly longer. To facilitate this process, we can create an "untagged data" tara kif jidher:

Issa, meta xi ħadd tiltaqa stabbiliti biex jonfqu siegħa kuljum allokat tagħhom jew tnejn biex tag dokumenti emigraw, they can use the "untagged documents" ħsieb li tiffoka l-isforz tagħhom:

Bħala dokumenti tag utenti, dawn qatra off din il-lista.

This notion of an untagged data view can also help with a class of data validation problem people inquire about on the forums. Barra mill-kaxxa, there’s no way to prevent a user from uploading a document to MOSS and then not enter meta data. We can specify that a particular site column is mandatory and the user won’t be allowed to push the save button. Madankollu, jekk l-uploads utent u mbagħad jagħlaq il-browser (jew użi twieqi Explorer biex ittella 'dokument), ma nistgħux seħħ il-utent biex jidħol meta data (darb'oħra, barra mill-kaxxa).

This approach can be used to help with that situation. We can use a "poorly tagged data" view to easily identify these documents and correct them. Couple this with a KPI and you have good visibility to the data with drill-down to manage these exceptional circumstances.

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Din il-ġimgħa, I’ve struggled a bit with my team to get MOSS installed in a simple two-server farm. Having gone through it, I ikollhom apprezzament akbar għall-tip ta 'problemi nies tirrapporta dwar l-forums MSDN u bnadi oħra.

Il-konfigurazzjoni farm finali:

• SQL / Indiċi / Intranet WFE ġewwa l-firewall.
• WFE fil-DMZ.
• Some kind of firewall between the DMZ and the internal server.

Before we started the project, we let the client know which ports needed to be open. During the give and take, back and forth over that, we never explicitly said two important things:

1. SSL means you need a certificate.
2. The DMZ server must be part of a domain.

Day one, we showed up to install MOSS and learned that the domain accounts for database and MOSS hadn’t been created. To move things along, we went ahead and installed everything with a local account on the intranet server.

F'dan il-punt, we discovered the confusion over the SSL certificate and, sfortunatament, decided to have our infrastructure guy come back later that week to continue installing the DMZ server. Fil-ħin medju, we solution architects moved ahead with the business stuff.

A weekend goes by and the client obtains the certificate.

Our infrastructure guy shows up and discovers that the DMZ server is not joined to any domain (either a perimeter domain with limited trust or the intranet domain). We wasted nearly a 1/2 day on that. If we hadn’t let the missing SSL certificate bog us down, we would have discovered this earlier. Oh well….

Another day passes and the various security committees, interested parties and (not so) innocent bystanders all agree that it’s OK to join the DMZ server with the intranet domain (this is a POC, wara kollox, not a production solution).

Infrastructure guy comes in to wrap things up. This time we successfully pass through the the modern-day gauntlet affectionately known as the "SharePoint Configuration Wizard." We have a peek in central administration and … yee haw! … DMZ server is listed in the farm. We look a little closer and realize we broke open the Champaign a mite bit early. WSS services is stuck in a "starting" status.

Long storja qasira, it turns out that we forgot to change the identity of the service account via central administration from the original local account to the new domain account. We did that, re-ran the configuration wizard and voila! We were in business.

</aħħar>

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Għalkemm mhuwiex litteralment veru, bħala kwistjoni prattiku, internet li jħarsu web tarf ta 'quddiem fil-DMZ għandu jkun fil-dominju (I.E. mhux xi server standalone fil workgroup ftit tagħha stess). It doesn’t need to be in the same domain as the internal WFE(i) u servers oħra (u probabbilment m'għandhomx), iżda jeħtieġ li jkun dominju.

My colleagues and I spent an inordinate amount of time on a proposal which included SharePoint pre-requisites. This included a comprehensive list of firewall configurations that would enable the DMZ server to join the farm and so forth. Sfortunatament, aħna naqset li tiżdied sentenza x'imkien li qal, l-effett, "the whole bloody point of this configuration is to allow your DMZ WFE server, f'qasam, biex jissieħbu fl-farm intern."

A maltempata perfetta ta 'avvenimenti, fejn aħna bażikament ħares xellug meta aħna jista ħarsu dritt, conspired biex jaħbu din il-problema minna sakemm pjuttost tard fil-proċess, b'hekk jiġi evitat me milli jinvoka tiegħi "tell aħbar ħażina kmieni" regola.

Daqqa.

Abbona għall-blog tiegħi.

Utenti forum spiss bħala mistoqsijiet bħal din:

> Hello,
>
> Jekk jogħġbok għidli jekk hemmx xi possibbiltajiet biex tinbena lista dwana ma
> kaptan u dettall tip (bħal fatturi) mingħajr l-użu InfoPath.
>

SharePoint jipprovdi wħud mill-karatteristiċi kaxxa li jappoġġjaw tipi ta 'ħtiġiet tan-negozju bħal dik.

B'mod ġenerali, one links two lists together using a lookup column. List A contains the invoice header information and list B contains invoice details.

Jużaw listi addizzjonali li jżommu klijent numri, numri tal-prodott, eċċ.

Uża parti kontenut tal-web query (fil MOSS biss) and/or a data view web part to create merged views of the lists. SQL Server Reporting Services (SRS) huwa wkoll disponibbli għall-naħa rappurtar ta 'dan.

Madankollu, there are some important limitations that will make it difficult to use pure out-of-the-box features for anything that is even moderately complex. These include:

• Daqs tal lookup relatati listi vs. "smartness" of the lookup column type. A lookup column type presents itself on the UI differently depending on whether you’ve enabled multi-select or not. In either case, the out-of-the-box control shows all available items from the source list. If the source list has 1,000 oġġetti, that’s going to be a problem. The lookup control does not page through those items. Minflok, it pulls all of them into the control. That makes for a very awkward user interface both in terms of data entry and performance.
• Lookups "pull back" one column of information. You can never pull back more than one column of information from the source list. Per eżempju, you cannot select a customer "12345" and display the number as well as the customer’s name and address at the same time. The lookup only shows the customer number and nothing else. This makes for an awkward and difficult user interface.
• No intra-form communication. Stajt bil-miktub dwar dan hawn. You can’t implement cascading drop-downs, jippermettu kondizzjonalment / jiskonnettja oqsma, eċċ.
• No cascading deletes or built-in referential integrity. SharePoint treats custom lists as independent entities and does not allow you to link them to each other in a traditional ERD sense. Per eżempju, SharePoint jippermettilek li toħloq żewġ listi tad-dwana, "customer" and "invoice header". You can create an invoice header that links back to a customer in the customer list. Imbagħad, you can delete the customer from the list. Barra mill-kaxxa, there is no way to prevent this. To solve this kind of problem, inti normalment tuża handlers avveniment.

Dan jista 'jidher skoraġġanti, but I would still use SharePoint as a starting point for building this kind of functionality. Though there are gaps between what you need in a solution, SharePoint tgħinna biex timla dawn il-lakuni permezz ta 'għodod bħall-:

• Handlers Avveniment. Use them to enforce referential integrity.
• Kolonni Custom: Create custom column types and use them in lieu of the default lookup column. Add paging, buffering u l-karatteristiċi Ajax sabiex isiru sensittivi.
• BDC. This MOSS-only feature enables us to query other SharePoint lists with a superior user interface to the usual lookup column. BDC can also reach out to a back end server application. Use BDC to avoid replication. Rather than replicating customer information from a back end ERP system, use BDC instead. BDC features provide a nice user interface to pull that information directly from the ERP system where it belongs and avoids the hassle of maintaining a replication solution.

  BDC hija karatteristika MOSS (mhux disponibbli fil WSS) and is challenging to configure.

• Formola tal-web ASP.NET: Oħloq full-dehru forma AJAX-ppermettiet li juża l-mudell oġġett SharePoint u / jew servizzi tal-web għal-listi SharePoint lieva filwaqt li tipprovdi user interface ferm reattivi.

L-aħħar għażla tista 'tħossok bħal int tibda mill-bidu, iżda tikkunsidra l-fatt li l-pjattaforma SharePoint jibda inti off mal-karatteristiċi ewlenin li ġejjin:

• Sigurtà mudell ma 'manutenzjoni.
• Sistema menu mal-manutenzjoni.
• "Master table" (I.E. listi tad-dwana) mas-sigurtà, mibnija fil-manutenzjoni u l-verifika.
• Fittex.
• Back jispiċċaw integrazzjoni għodod (BDC).

Jekk tibda bi proġett blank ġdid fl-istudjo viżwali, ikollok ħafna ta 'infrastruttura u plumbing biex jibnu qabel ikollok qrib għal dak offerti SharePoint.

I do believe that Microsoft intends to extend SharePoint in this direction of application development. It seems like a natural extension to the existing SharePoint base. Microsoft’s CRM application provides a great deal of extensibility of the types needed to support header/detail application development. Although those features are in CRM, the technology is obviously available to the SharePoint development team and I expect that it will make its way into the SharePoint product by end of 2008. If anyone has an knowledge or insight into this, jekk jogħġbok leave kumment.

</aħħar>