Related
The general consensus is that devlopment of MOSS publishing sites, should be done using site definitions, Solutions, Features but due to project timescales we had to do all list/site column/content type/master page development using the SharePoint UI and SPD. We then used the contentdeployment wizard to migrate everything from devlopment.
Having done this, the future plan is to possibly, given the budget, change what has been built to use a site definition and features to get in line with best practices.
Has anyone done anything similar or have any tips on how best to plan for this?
Kind Regards
This is somewhat dependent on how large and complex your solution is. I was in the same situation with a project I started to work in. They initially started to do everything in SharePoint Designer. But when I was thrown in to the project, I decided to scrap all those changes, starting from the requirements and build up everything as site definitions/solutions/features in Visual Studio. In this case, it was feasible since the customizations were not too complex.
You can take a look at the SharePoint Solutions Generator, to see if that could help you as well. It can give you at least a good starting point.
There is a pretty strong need for us to design some workflows around various processes. The problem is none of us actually know any workflow technology yet, and finding good data to compare the available options has been tedious and not entirely fruitful.
So I figured I'd ask you guys.
The main technologies we are looking at are Windows Workflow Foundation and eDocs Workflow. What other options are there? Sharepoint 2007 has workflow functionality too, right? Is that just based on WF?
What are the pros and cons of the various technologies? How do they compare?
EDIT: Also, one feature the administrative types like with eDocs Workflow is that it provides a method for them to edit it themselves. I believe Sharepoint '07 does as well. Is there some other way to allow that with a straight WWF implementation?
Sharepoint and WF more like complementary technologies, designed as two different workflow authoring tools in the same ecosystem. There's a Sharepoint workflow designer, and a WF (Windows Workflow Foundation) workflow designer.
The Sharepoint designer is meant to be an Office-like workflow editing experience, easier to get started with, geared for non-technical types, and generates all the web forms automatically.
The 'WF' workflow designer on the other hand is actually a component of Visual Studio (by default - as Bernie says you can rehost it), and designed to allow programmers to be able to fully customize workflow, and integrate it with any other code/systems desired. Building and deploying sharepoint sites this way is still possible, through the use of 'Sharepoint Activities', but more complex.
If you take the former route, you can hopefully let the administrative types do their own basic customizations (up to the limits of that environment) without causing total chaos.
It is possible to 'rehost' the WF designer (the one from Visual Studio) in your own application, so that users can author workflows. There are a number of code examples on the web, the most important one from MS itself: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480213.aspx).
At some point, when evaluating WF, I implemented a demo application that did this and added some features and found that although it works, not everybody can understand and use the more difficult activities (like the policy activity) that require understanding of how the rules engine works.
My organization has begun slowly repurposing itself to a less product-oriented business model and more contract-oriented business model over the last year or two. During the past year, I was shifted into the new contracting business to help put out fires and fill orders. While the year as a whole was profitable (and therefore, by at least one measure, successful, we had a couple projects that really dinged our numbers for the year back around June.
I was talking with my manager before the Christmas holiday, and he mentioned that, while he doesn't like the term "post-mortem" (I have no idea what's wrong with the term, any business folks or managers out there know?), he did want to hold a meeting sometime mid-January where the entire contract group would review the year and try to figure out what went right, what went wrong, and what initiatives we can perform to try to improve profitability.
For various reasons (I'll go into more detail if it's requested), I believe that one thing our team, and indeed the organization as a whole, would benefit from is some form of organized code-sharing. The same things get done again and again by different people and they end up getting done (and broken) in different ways. I'd like to at least establish a repository where people can grab code that performs a certain task and include (or, realistically, copy/paste) that code in their own projects.
What should I propose as a workable common source repository for a team of at least 10-12 full-time devs, plus anywhere from 5-50 (very) part time developers who are temporarily loaned to the contract group for specialized work?
The answer required some cultural information for any chance at a reasonable answer, so I'll provide it here, along with some of my thoughts on the topic:
Developers will not be forced to use this repository. The barrier to
entry must be as low as possible to
encourage participation, or it will
be ignored. Sadly, this means
that anything which requires an
additional software client to be
installed and run will likely fail.
ClickOnce deployment's about as
close as we can get, and that's awfully iffy.
We are a risk-averse, Microsoft shop. I may be able to sell open-source solutions, but they'll be looked upon with suspicion. All devs have VSS, the corporate director has declared that VSTS is not viable going forward. If it isn't too difficult a setup and the license is liberal, I could still try to ninja a VSTS server into the lab.
Some of my fellow devs care about writing quality, reliable software, some don't. I'd like to protect any shared code written by those who care from those who don't. Common configuration management practices (like checking out code while it's being worked on) are completely ignored by at least a fifth of my colleagues on the contract team.
We're better at writing processes than following them. I will pretty much have to have some form of written process to be able to sell this to my manager. I believe it will have to be lightweight, flexible, and enforced by the tools to be remotely relevant because my manager is the only person who will ever read it.
Don't assume best practices. I would very much like to include things like mandatory code reviews to enforce use of static analysis tools (FxCop, StyleCop) on common code. This raises the bar, however, because no such practices are currently performed in a consistent manner.
I will be happy to provide any additional requested information. :)
EDIT: (Responsing to questions)
Perhaps contracting isn't the correct term. We absolutely own our own code assets. A significant part of the business model on paper (though not, yet, in practice) is that we own the code/projects we write and we can re-sell them to other customers. Our projects typically take the form of adding some special functionality to one of the company's many existing software products.
From the sounds of it you have a opportunity during the "post-mortem"to present some solutions. I would create a presentation outlining your ideas and present them at this meeting. Before that I would recommend that you set up some solutions and demonstrate it during your presentation. Some things to do -
Evangelize component based programming (A good read is Programming .NET Components - Jubal Lowy). Advocate the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle of coding.
Set up a central common location in you repository for all your re-usable code libraries. This should have the reference implementation of your re-usable code library.
Make it easy for people to use your code libraries by providing project templates for common scenarios with the code libraries already baked in. This way your colleagues will have a consistent template to work from. You can leverage the VS.NET project template capabilities to this - check out the following links VSX Project System (VS.Net 2008), Code Project article on creating Project Templates
Use a build automation tool like MSBuild (which is bundled in VS2005 and up) to copy over just the components needed for a particular project. Make this part of your build setup in the IDE (VS.NET 2005 and up have nifty ways to set up pre-compile and post-compile tasks using MSBuild)
I know there is resistance for open source solutions but I would still recommend setting up and using a continuous automation system like CruiseControl.NET so that you can leverage it to compile and test your projects on a regular basis from a central repository where the re-usable code library is maintained. This way any changes to the code library can be quickly checked to make sure it does not break anything, It also helps bring out version issues with the various projects.
If you can set this up on a machine and show it during your post-mortem as part of the steps that can be taken to improve, you should get better buy since you are showing something already working that can be scaled up easily.
Hope this helps and best of luck with your evangelism :-)
I came across this set of frameworks recently called the Chuck Norris Frameworks - They are available on NuGet at http://nuget.org/packages/chucknorris . You should definitely check them out, as they have some nice templates for your ASP.NET projects. Also definitely checkout Nuget.
organize by topic, require unit tests (feature-level) for check-in/acceptance into library; add a wiki to explain what/why and for searching
One question: You say this is a consulting group. What code assets do you have? I would think most of your teams' coding efforts would be owned by your clients as part of your work-for-hire contract. If you are going to do this you need to make absolutely certain that your contracts grant you rights to your employees' work.
Maven has solved code reuse in the Java community - you should go check it out.
I have a .NET developer that's devised something similar for our internal use for .NET assemblies. Because there's no comparable .NET Internet community, this tool will just access an internal repository in our corporate network. Otherwise will work rather much the way Maven does.
Maven could really be used to manage .NET assemblies directly (we use it with our Flex .swf and .swc code modules) is just .NET folk would have to get over using a Java tool and would probably have to write a Maven plugin to drive msbuild.
First of all for code organization check out Microsoft Framework Design Guidelines at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229042.aspx and then create a central Location source control for the new framework that your going to create. Set up some default namespaces, assemblies for cleaner seperation and make sure everyone gets a daily build.
Just an additional point, since we have "shared code" in my shop as well.
We found out this is very much a packaging issue:
Whatever code your are producing or tool you are using, what you should have is a common build tool able to package your sources into a "delivery component", with everything used to actually execute the code, but also the documentation (compressed), and the source (compressed).
The main interest into having a such a "delivery package unit" is to have as less files to deploy as possible, in order to ease the download of those units.
The build process can very well be managed by Maven or any other (ant/nant) tool you want.
When some audit team want to examine all our projects, we just deploy on their post the same packages we deploy on a production machine, except they will un-compressed the source files and do their work.
Since our source files also includes whatever files are needed to compile them (like for instance eclipse files), they even can re-compile those projects in their development environment).
That way:
Developers will not be forced to use this repository. The barrier to entry must be as low as possible to encourage participation, or it will be ignored: it is just a script to execute to get the "delivery module" with everything in it they need (a maven repository can be used for that too)
We are a risk-averse, Microsoft shop: you can use any repository you want
Some of my fellow devs care about writing quality, reliable software, some don't: this has nothing to do with the quality of code written in these packages modules
We're better at writing processes than following them: the only process involved in this is the packaging process, and it can be fairly automated
Don't assume best practices: you are not forced to apply any kind of static code analysis before packaging executable and source files.
We have a small 3 developer team that is currently using Subversion for our source control. We expect the team to group to 8 members within the next 6 to 12 months. We are considering changing our source control to either TFS or Mercurial for improved branching. I know TFS is overkill for just branching, but that is the immediate need, and the other features of TFS could aid our team. One of our main concerns with TFS is we've heard that there is a lot of overhead deploying it, especially on a small team. I'm hoping to get some community insight into just how much overhead there may be involved, suggestions to make the process easier, and anything else the community may feel is useful in making the decision to implement.
In my experience, TFS works really well, even for small teams. If your total number of developers is five or less, you can use the relatively affordable Workgroup edition: above that, you'll have to pony up for the real thing, pricing for which is definitely in the 'Enterprise' realm...
The biggest hurdle to starting to use TFS is installing the darn thing: this process seems to be designed for maximum aggravation. (The extent to which the 'designers' of the 2005-to-2008 upgrade 'process' despise their users even manages to go beyond that: fortunately, you'll be able to start with TFS2008 and won't have to worry about upgrading for a while).
If you follow the instructions exactly, you should manage in 2-3 tries, though, and the hardware requirements aren't as bad as they seem. My 3-developer TFS setup runs quite comfortable on a previous-generation Dell laptop with 4GB of RAM.
One of the big advantages of TFS is the VS integration: this works just really, really well, and shelving and branching are implemented in a more straightforward way than with any other systems I've seen.
The process guidance and support in TFS are a bit less polished, but still quite usable. The pluggable support for several development methodologies is quite nice, and several third-party add-ons (for example for Scrum) are available already.
All in all, it definitely won't hurt to try TFS: if you have a MSDN subscription, you probably already have the Workgroup edition as well as a trial of the full version: otherwise, you can downloaded the latter from Microsoft as well.
UPDATE, April 12th, 2010: With the release of Team Foundation Server 2010, the installation and upgrade procedures have improved a lot. A new TFS2010 install shouldn't take you more than a few minutes (assuming you already have an instance of SQL Server 2008 up and running) and even an in-place upgrade of my TFS2008 setup proved to be entirely painless.
Setup of TFS is not too complicated, when you exactly follow the given guide step by step. We are using it on a small team for about one year now and i don't want to miss it any more.
Especially when you use more than one part of tfs like version control and work item tracking and maybe even teambuild, your team will benefit of the tight integration of the seperate parts.
For example, you can link to workitems when checking in code changes.
Then you run an automated build with teambuild and it will automatically update your workitems with the build number.
So afterwards you can see for example in a bug workitem the buildnumber which contains the bugfix.
We also use the sharepoint wiki for documentation and planning although i'm not the biggest sharepoint fan...
The main point is the great integration into the IDE and for workitem tracking the Teamsystem Web Access which allows you to control at least your workitems over a webinterface.
It's been awhile, but I'm thinking that it takes about a half-day to get setup, plus some time reading the manuals beforehand to make sure you know what you're doing. Configuration doesn't take too long -- you need to add all of your developers in as licensed users. Setting up projects is not too hard. I usually set up AD groups to map on the project roles and add those groups to the appropriate roles. I set up a new project in about 1/2 hour.
Note: I don't use any of the features of TFS except source control. If you plan to item tracking, use the project sharepoint site, etc., your mileage will vary quite a bit. I've found that on our projects (2-3 developers) a wiki works just as well for project management.
Questions #1 through #4 on the Joel Test in my opinion are all about the development tools being used and the support system in place for developers:
Do you use source control?
Can you make a build in one step?
Do you make daily builds?
Do you have a bug database?
I'm just curious what free/cheap (but good) tools exist for the small development shops that don't have large bank accounts to use to achieve a positive answer on these questions.
For source control I know Subversion is a great solution, and if you are a one man shop you could even use SourceGear's Vault.
I use NAnt for my larger projects, but have yet to set up a script to build my installers as well as running the obfusication tools all as a single step. Any other suggestions?
If you can answer yes to the building in a single step, I think creating daily builds would be easy, but what tools would you recommend for automating those daily builds?
For a one or two man team, it's already been discussed on SO that you can use FogBugz On Demand, but what other bug tracking solutions exist for small teams?
source control: Subversion or Mercurial or Git
build automation: NAnt, MSBuild, Rake, Maven
continuous integration: CruiseControl.NET or Continuum or Jenkins
issue tracking: Trac, Bugzilla, Gemini (if it must be .NET and free-ish)
Don't forget automated testing with NUnit, Fit, and WatiN.
1) Subversion
2) Ant / Maven
3) Continuum
4) Bugzilla / Trac
My preferred stack:
1) Subversion. I'm intrigued about distributed source control but haven't had chance to try any in anger yet. For a centralized solution svn is rock solid.
2) Ant. Maven is a joy to use when it's working but as an old ant hacker I find maven to be hard to follow once things go wrong.
3) Hudson. Not been mentioned so far but definitely worth investigating. Incredibly usable and actively maintained tool. PreviousLy we paid for Anthill Pro which seemed flakey and was painful to fix each time it screwed up.
4) We pay for jira. Not cheap but much more usable than the open source options we looked at and very flexible too.
My engineering stack:
Git (I love GitHub, but Git doesn't require a hosted solution)
Rake
CruiseControl.rb
FogBugz
No doubt these choices are influenced by my development stack, which most often includes Ruby, Rails, SQLite, Firefox, and OSX.
You may want to look at an existing question of mine for finding an alternative to Team System. There are plenty of recommendations in there also.
Git
Make
Cron
Trac
I'm a man of few syllables ;-)
Be sure to use some kind of version control where developers can easily create private branches willy-nilly, then take their private branch and squeeze it into a single commit on the main branch. That way, individual developers---as opposed to the organization---can get the benefits of version control without polluting anyone else's code (and slowing down their work) with broken commits.
This feature is what I like about git. I think it's only really present in distributed version control systems; using a DVCS doesn't mean you actually have to do distributed development, though.
Regarding one-step building, make is the default build tool and it works quite well for most tasks. I'd go with that unless you have a good reason not to.
You want daily builds, put the build command in your cron.daily. Set up a procmail hook to handle the mail from cron if need be.
For bug tracking, use $(apt-cache search bug tracking). Basically, as long as it says "bug tracker" on the box and you know other people are using it, it's probably going to work fine. Among the regulars are bugzilla, mantis and trac.
I don't have any tools to suggest, but I do have a suggestion about the daily builds. I always answer yes to that question, even though we don't have daily builds. Instead, we do a build every time someone does a commit. We thereby catch any problems almost immediately. If any of our projects ever has enough LOC that building takes more than trivial time, doing this will also gracefully degrade in the direction of a daily build.
A good issue tracker that was relatively inexpensive was axoSoft OnTime. I used it for years before getting MS TFS.
Nant and CruiseControl are staples of my environment.
I don't think you really need obfuscation on .Net any more (see another response)
I wouldn't consider Vault, SVN is really the market leader at the moment (and free). Git is looking pretty promising but currently is command line only with a steep learning curve.
MSBuild beats NAnt for .Net 2 or 3.5
CC.Net is excellent.
*4) Redmine
I recommend Bitnami for testing out different stacks. It's got Trac, Redmine, and Subversion, as well as several other unrelated ones.
Check out these articles on Continuous Integration using MSBuild, CruiseControl.NET, FxCop, NUnit, NCover and Subversion...
From the software development trenches
I'm currently using SVN but I've generally had a lot or problem with checkouts to a network drive on a dev server. There tend to be locking issues that require a lot of fishing around to fix. It may be that using the WebDav access method, would ease some of these problems, but I haven't experimented yet.
Any of Bugzilla, Trac or Fogbugz will help you with your bug tracking, and each offer an export feature, so you can always change your mind later on. Also, if you can get your team to fully buy in, time management software can also be handy for post-mortems, etc (if everyone is motivated to fully participate.
For build automation and continuous integration take a look at TeamCity from Jetbrains.
It has a lot of features and is really a breeze to set up and use.
If you use Visual Studio 2005/2008 it will build your solution directly without the need for extra scripts (if a build is all you want.)
It will also execute your unit tests and gather stats on build success, unit test execution times, etc, etc.
Best of all: The Pro edition is free for teams with up to 20 users and 3 build agents.
source control: cvs
build gnu make
cron job that calls bash scripts
bugzilla