|
CBadger wrote: Anyone know or work/worked as a SharePoint developer that can give me a easy explanation on what it is?
A webbased multi-user version of MS Access. Used for lists, not tables.
CBadger wrote: to what can I relate SharePoint to understand what type of coding etc it is?
Depends on what you're working; the most visible part of SP is the ASP.NET part. Then again, you could also be writing an addin for some desktop application that manipulates some list in SharePoint. Or create a SilverLight application that gets hosted on the site.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Ok so that clarifies it up a bit. Basically FrontEnd development using XML and asp.net?
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
CBadger wrote: Basically FrontEnd development using XML and asp.net?
Yes, no. It's easy to make front-ends, but you don't need a dev for that. There's a LOT of extension-points in the product.
Think WebParts, SilverLight, webservices, workflows, CAML.. Lots[^] on MSDN 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
That helps, thanks alot 
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
It's MS's version of Office documents' CMS. It also supports workflows and version control, the latter to some degree I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
Well sound interesting and boring at the same time LoL
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
It all depends on what you do with it. The workflow part could be very useful in a large organization.
modified 23-May-14 9:52am.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought about it this way (To make it easier to explain)... If I was now offered a huge (not ridiculously large just quite better) salary to work as a SP dev would I do it? Problem is I do not really know what it is LoL
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't know it and the company that wants to pay you more knows you don't know it, it doesn't hurt for you to learn it, especially if you're trying to get out of your old company. Or maybe you can just keep looking. 
|
|
|
|
|
All true yes, well then thinking about it I might tell him to do it. Let's face it, he is still young and might as well give it a try and see how it works out. It is not like I stuck to the first job I ever got. 
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: For my sins I did a bit of work on an attempt to turn a spreadsheet into a
sharepoint site last summer.
Isn't that the root of most problems though, trying to convert something that shouldn't be done and just starting from scratch?
|
|
|
|
|
Probably. The person I inherited the project from said if he'd been allowed to use Real Web Tools (tm), he'd've had it done with only half the time he spent. By the end of my time in hell I reached the same conclusion; and to add insult to injury the spreadsheet continued acquiring new requirements through the whole process and AFAIK is still what is being used in production. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Impressive artwork 
According to my calculations, I should be able to retire about 5 years after I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Behold the power of 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
SharePoint is the main reason I left Microsoft. I think it is a pretty useful tool for the users, but as a development platform it is sheer nightmare. This (closed) SO thread sums it up nicely:
What are your biggest complaints about Sharepoint?[^]. Some of the comments for those who can't see deleted posts at SO:
•SPWeb/SPSite.Dispose - You usually dispose, except if you don't. And if you dispose when you should not, bad things happen. Unfortunately, it is not really clear when to dispose and when not, there are a variety of Edge-Cases
•Documentation, or more the lack of. What does SPSchedule.EndMinute actually DO? Will it forcefully end a running job? Most of the MSDN Documentation is incomplete or plain unhelpful.
Architecturally, the system is extremely fragile. It's a black box, with many moving parts which are clearly loosely coupled, but the precise nature of the interactions between various subsystems is opaque at best, and it is alarmingly easy to take a MOSS site down. A bit anecdotal, but out of the maybe few dozen production deployments we have done so far, something different has gone wrong inside MOSS every time. A timer job fails to kick off, one of the servers in the farm doesn't get all the right files, the content database gets locked or worse.
I could go on and on (I might come back and add some more) but I think my point is clear - Sharepoint is great to pop straight out of the box and onto a server for collaboration and document management. Nothing else. The attempts to make it do more than that is precisely what has broken the souls of so many developers.
The atrocious naming conventions. A "feature" is a module that a user activates. A "module" is a logical file copy/path. A "schema" is a list definition. A "template" is a list definition that has been made available to the user via the UI. And of course - SPSite is a site collection and SPWeb is a site. Uh, what?
SharePoint, at its heart, is a convoluted mess of anti-patterns and Rube Goldberg-like contraptions all operating behind a black curtain. To be more specific, it’s a bunch of tightly coupled COM objects which are wrapped inside .NET objects. Now, it’s anyone’s guess as to what’s hiding inside those COM objects, but for those of us who are intimate with the product it isn’t a conspiracy theory to believe that there is, indeed, a whole bunch of Vermeer code inside of them. There are clues, if you know where to look, and the horrors of the database schema are there in plain sight for your viewing displeasure.
modified 23-May-14 8:57am.
|
|
|
|
|
I so agree. It turns out the people that like SP the most is the people that have no idea how to develop. I've only just started looking into it as it's a requirement at the company I'm working at, and I'm really, really, really pushing towards simply using it to store documents and track them and that's all.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: It turns out the people that like SP the most is the people that have no idea how to develop.
Did I mention I love it?
Lots of data can be (re)presented as a list. Imagine having programmatic access to such a list, complete with metadata and security. Imagine launching a workflow when an item is added to a list (thing sqls' trigger, but more powerfull). Imagine a stable version of MSAccess, webbased. And now imagine being able to use .NET in almost any part of that application.
There was (is?) an issue-tracking template that gives a bit of an idea of what you can do, should be nice and recognizable for a dev.
The downsides are the price and the vendor lock-in.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Lots of data can be (re)presented as a list.
I totally agree with you there. My peeve isn't the list-driven interface concept. Although, it doesn't work for everything. But for document management it's not bad.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Imagine having programmatic access to such a list, complete with metadata and security. Imagine launching a workflow when an item is added to a list (thing sqls' trigger, but more powerfull). Imagine a stable version of MSAccess, webbased. And now imagine being able to use .NET in almost any part of that application.
Imagine a slow and non-performant web app. Imagine poor internal structure. Imagine an even more stable version of MS Access being called SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL, etc. Imagine being able to construct a better architecture for a web app that's extremely scalable. Imagine running sites like Code Project and Facebook on SharePoint. Imagine using HTML5 cleanly without SP crap getting in the way.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: There was (is?) an issue-tracking template that gives a bit of an idea of what you can do, should be nice and recognizable for a dev.
If you use it for what it's intended for, I don't mind it one bit. It's a nice cookie-cutter solution to one problem. It's not the end all be all SharePoint guys try to pretend it is. It's when trying to extend it, then I'd much rather just write a real web app. And most SP guys are simply ignorant of how to really develop, so I understand their opinion. But the more experienced they get I'm sure it'll change.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Although, it doesn't work for everything
It's not a silver bullet, so don't use it for "everything". There's a lot of tables that can be condensed to a list.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Imagine a slow and non-performant web app
Simple solution; don't run it on a box with 1 Gb memory.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Imagine being able to construct a better architecture for a web app that's extremely scalable
Take a look at the price of SharePoint.
Now look at your code.
Now look at the price of SharePoint again.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Simple solution; don't run it on a box with 1 Gb memory.
We're developers, we thrive on complex. If I need a toaster, that toaster will be able to travel to the moon and back while making toast. 
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Now look at the price of SharePoint again.
I know what you're saying. Where I'm working we're actually implementing SP for the run-of-the-mill collaboration. But, the rest of the "information systems" infrastructure is using a custom solution. Gotta have toast on the moon.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one. I subscribed to a Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 site last week...all I can tell you is that in SharePoint, everything is a 'list' with different ways to 'view' the lists.
Mostly just wanted it to share a team calendar with my group of mostly MS Outlook users...it mostly works for that, anyway...mostly...
|
|
|
|
|
I've taken a courses on it, and used it a bit, and the reason nobody what's WTF it is, is because it's not really anything. It's what you make of it. As such, the definition I give it is a development platform for storing documents. Much like how Windows Explorer works in Windows or how source control works; however, this development platform, just so happens to use a SQL Server backend with a list-driven web interface and has a lot more beef. So, it's like a file system you can develop with, be it custom modules, workflows, and even support version control.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Movie Quote Of The Day
I'd say she's a trained goddamn liar, and everything she's said up until now has been to protect her cover.
Which movie?
|
|
|
|
|
The Iron Lady
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
