Making Sense of the SharePoint World

Nov-272009

FeedBurner Under Control

MCBD07000_0000[1]The Fix is In, Thanks to Tom Resing

I have great news, thanks to fellow SharePointer Tom Resing. In my previous post I mentioned the problems the Community Kit for SharePoint:Enhanced Blog Edition has with the new link tracking parameters FeedBurner just started adding to their links.

In that post, I talked about the trials and tribulations of trying to get CKS:EBE working by installing an updated version. It turns out there was another approach to the problem. Although Google made the change to FeedBurner effective by default, Tom pointed out that they do offer an option to turn it off.

The Quick Fix

So, for those of you using both FeedBurner and CKS:EBE, here's the scoop. On the left menu in your FeedBurner Feed Stats Dashboard, in the Services section, is an option called "Configure Stats":

image

When you select Configure Stats, you have a section called "Reach", which has several options. You need to uncheck the box for "Track Clicks as a traffic source in Google Analytics":

image

That's all there is to it! Save the settings, and everything should be back to "normal".

Of course, it would have been nice if Google had posted a more conspicuous notice that they were making this change, and where it could be configured. It would have been even nicer if they had made the change "opt in" instead of "opt out".

Nevertheless, what's done is done. You should now be able to click through from my RSS feed directly to the articles you are interested in.

I apologize for any inconvenience.


Nov-252009

Burned by FeedBurner

MCj04314980000[1]At Least They Didn't Burn the Turkey

Just a quick note before I run off for the Thanksgiving holiday (USA). If you have been a subscriber to my RSS feed, you may have noticed a problem clicking through to my blog posts lately. This is because of a change that FeedBurner made a few weeks ago. They added extra parameter information to the connection string of links back to the blog.

This is theoretically a good thing, as it allows site logging to better determine where visitors are coming from. However, this blog uses the Community Kit for SharePoint: Enhanced Blogging Edition (CKS:EBE). The way CKS:EBE handles URLs doesn't allow it to correctly interpret these additional parameters. This resulted in broken page displays. You can still eventually navigate back to the right page, but it isn't as convenient as it should be.

I have just tested a patched version of CKS:EBE to resolve that problem. While the patch for the FeedBurner problem seems to work correctly, there are significant issues with other changes to the patched build of CKS:EBE. I noticed that my tag cloud was no longer resizing the keyword links to their proportions, for example, and there were major authentication problems. These glitches are bad enough that I decided to retract the update.

I apologize for the inconvenience. Rest assured, I'll continue working on getting links from FeedBurner working (without breaking everything else).

In the mean time, Have a Happy Turkey Day!


Nov-122009

SharePoint Virtualization

MCj04115480000[1]All of Your Eggs in One Basket?

Every time a new version of a virtualization tool comes out, people get all excited about the possibility of reducing the costs of running their data centers. Most of them are thinking in terms of hardware consolidation, but virtualized environments also allow for new ways of handling resilience and recovery as well.

This is all well and good, but then you run into what I call "the new hammer syndrome". The idea is, after you buy a new hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. You keep thinking of ways to apply this new tool. Some of them are great. Others, not so much.

Note: This post is neither "pro" nor "anti" virtualization in SharePoint. It is very much about the considerations involved in making that decision for your environment.

Virtualization and SharePoint

SharePoint, in particular, frequently seems like a ripe target for virtualization. It has a multitude of roles, which can be (and often are) distributed among many servers. Data center managers see all of this hardware and envision collapsing it onto a single box. And, SharePoint is officially supported in virtualized environments. It seems like a match made in heaven, doesn't it?

But, not so fast! Take a step back and think about what I just said. You are taking all of these SharePoint roles, and spreading them out among multiple servers. Now you want to take all of these servers and virtualize them back onto a single piece of hardware? Where is the sense in that?

Why did you build out that many servers in the first place?

Pausing while people try to gather back the pieces of their exploded heads from that bit of circular logic...

Profound, isn't it? Almost like a Zen koan.

On Over-Engineering a Solution

SharePoint will very happily run all of its roles on a single server (physical or virtual), if you want it to. So, why would you want to split the roles at all? There are really only two reasons (good ones, anyway) - performance, and resilience. (No, I don't consider being able to point at a monitoring station covering a half-dozen or more servers and saying "Look at all of the systems I manage in my SharePoint farm" a good reason.)

From a performance standpoint, some SharePoint roles are real resource hogs. The two big ones would be SQL Server and Search Indexing/Crawling. SQL Server, though not technically part of SharePoint, is hit pretty much constantly by nearly every SharePoint component, and so is almost always set aside on separate hardware. The search crawl process, though intense, is "peaky." In other words, it goes through cycles of short bursts of intense activity, followed by periods of near idleness. In comparison, the web front-end functionality is a cake-walk. A single WFE server can handle potentially many thousands of users without breaking a sweat.

In fact, a big, modern server can probably handle hundreds, if not thousands, of users even with everything except SQL Server running on it. (Naturally, this depends upon just what those users are doing.) So performance is rarely the real reason for splitting off most of SharePoint's functions, except in very large environments.

That leaves resilience. Resilience is the ability of a system to keep on going, even if a piece of it fails. By splitting the SharePoint roles onto several servers, and having multiple instances of the roles that face your users, you can create a system which can tolerate a failure of any one component with minimal short-term impact. It is possible to take this too far, however. It isn't a case of "if two are good, three must be better, and five are better still."

What good is having three or more web front end servers, when they all sit practically idle at singe-digit percent utilization - even during peak periods? Not very good at all. At a minimum, it is not a very efficient use of resources. This is the kind of thing that makes virtualization look really attractive.

Balance

So, is virtualization really the answer? Maybe. Or maybe not. Let's get back to that biggest of little questions - "Why?"

Why did you build out your farm onto multiple servers?

Did you build out this big farm because your usage is so heavy, you were stressing out anything less? Then you are almost certainly not a good candidate for virtualization. In this case, you've got your hardware optimized to its load. Virtualization is just going to add another layer, and if you're already fully loading your systems, you won't get any benefit from host sharing with other virtual servers. The only reason you might justify going virtual is to be able to quickly replicate a failed system from an image, or shift a running image onto another host. But can you handle the extra overhead?

Did you build out your farm for resilience? The minimum "fully" resilient SharePoint farm is a configuration I call "2.1+". That's two servers running as WFE and Query servers (along with Excel Services in Enterprise Edition), one application server running the Index role (of which there can be only one per SSP) and optionally running other duplicated roles as well, "plus" a properly specified SQL cluster. This configuration can handle thousands of users, even with modest (by today's standards) hardware. In fact, from a performance standpoint it is probably still overkill for most organizations. Here, you might find some room to virtualize. But be careful - you split these roles out in the first place to avoid having a single point of failure. Virtualizing them and simply placing all of the VM's on a single host eliminates that benefit.

And What About SQL Server?

I decided to write about virtualization because I've been approached several times in the last week or so with folks asking about virtualizing the SQL Server side of SharePoint. Up until now, even when virtualization has been appropriate for some SharePoint components, I've always advised against making SQL virtual. But VMWare has just introduced a new version for which their marketing message is claiming that SQL virtualization is now a good thing.

Frankly, I'm not convinced. My main concern is that SharePoint is a very heavy user of SQL Server. Again it boils down to your utilization. Are your SQL Servers already CPU or disk I/O bound? If so, virtualization isn't going to help matters. If not, then you might be OK. Even if you decide to virtualize computation, I would still avoid virtualizing the data storage without first doing extensive load testing.

Going Forward

Ultimately, all computer configuration involves trade-offs. Cost, performance, and resilience are three corners of one of those "pick any two" engineering triangle conundrums. Virtualization doesn't eliminate the trade-off, but it can shift the balance toward the lower-cost corner. Whether or not it is appropriate in your case will depend upon your server load and tolerance for risk. In the case of SharePoint, you can achieve many of the same results as virtualization by simply re-consolidating the roles that were originally split off.

Mark Twain once said: "Keep all of your eggs in one basket - then watch that basket!" If you do decide to virtualize, make sure you take appropriate precautions. The Microsoft Consulting Services UK SharePoint Team has written an excellent series of articles on SharePoint virtualization. I suggest checking that out for more technical details.


Nov-112009

A Free SharePoint Org Chart Web Part

MCj04348220000[1]Enhancing a CodePlex Project

In this article, I'm going to get a bit more technical than is my normal wont. In fact, I'm going to go into Visual Studio, and show you some C# code as well.

(Waiting a few minutes for folks who know me to pick their jaws up off the floor, or even find some smelling salts... Yes, Virginia, I really can program when I have to. :) I just very rarely have to.)

That doesn't mean I'm going to be building this project from scratch. Far from it. So, if you're looking for info on how to build a .wsp solution package, this isn't the article for you. I am going to talk a bit about user choice, web part properties, a programming technique called "recursion", and the SharePoint API (in particular, accessing the User Profile store).

What I'm going to do is show you how to fulfill a very common business requirement by starting with a fairly simple CodePlex project, and tweaking it until it is something that does just what you need.

A Common Request

Virtually every client I've implemented SharePoint for has asked for an organizational chart. The problem is, there aren't very many org chart web parts out there for SharePoint, and those that are, tend to have issues (usually performance) - especially if you have a fairly large organization.

SharePoint Server 2010 finally makes a really cool organization chart part of the package. It is Silverlight based, and works pretty fast. Unfortunately, that's 2010, and it is going to be a while before many companies are ready to deploy it. We need something that will work for "today".

Finding the CodePlex Project

So what do you do? Well, a quick online search reveals that there is indeed an org chart part on CodePlex, called (quite originally) "OrgChartPart". This was written by Rodney Viana. Looking at the specs, it sounds promising:

  • It reads profile information from SharePoint
  • It uses a free JavaScript Org Chart rendering engine
  • And of course, it is free, too!

What's not to like?

There is a bit, as it turns out, but let's start with the good. Installing the OrgChartPart is a breeze. Download the .wsp file from CodePlex, install it with the "stsadm -o addsolution" command, and deploy it to your web application(s). You will then need to add the part to your web part gallery (there is a feature that does this, or you can do it manually), then add it to a page. (I suggest you add it to a web part page that has nothing else on it, for reasons you will see in a moment.) This takes 5 minutes, tops.

The web part reads your MOSS profile store, and emits the chart. Just like that, you're done!

On the surface, that doesn't sound too bad. But dig a little deeper, and you find a big red flag - the author warns that you shouldn't use the part if you have more than 500 profiles in your organization. Of course, if you have more than 500, you've got a problem.

But even if you have fewer than 500 profiles, you might not like the results. Consider the following clip of the chart initially rendered by this part:

image

This is a pretty complicated organization - it doesn't fit on the screen, and it is completely expanded by default. But, there's another issue. The chart looks a little "top heavy". That's because the Active Directory includes a number of accounts that aren't actually users, and therefore don't have associations in the hierarchy. Looking closer, you can see that Patricia Doyle, the CEO, has conference rooms as peers! There's also some clipping of titles and departments.

image

Note: This is technically a problem with the Active Directory and/or its import. In theory, you could set up the AD/Profile import to exclude non-person entities. But, that's another story... :)

Looking Under the Hood

Still, even with those issues, you can see the potential in this part.

Note: Most of the remainder of this article discusses how the OrgChartPart was originally implemented, and how I updated it. If you just want the end results, you can download the original source from CodePlex, plus my replacement OrgChartPart.cs file and rebuild the solution. (I have also given the code updates to Rodney, who may update the actual CodePlex project.)

Fortunately, as with most CodePlex projects, we have access to the source code. I downloaded the source and opened the project in Visual Studio. What we see is, the part is actually quite simple. There is one .cs file (the two in the image below include my edited version, plus the original) and the ECOTree JavaScript library. ECOTree is what actually does the heavy lifting of drawing the chart. By default, OrtChartPart uses just a fraction of the power of this library (follow the link above for more details).

image

There is also a "departmentconfig.xml" file hiding in the Layouts folder of the 12 hive. Hmmm...

Looking at the code itself, we find there are four main functional areas beyond the basics needed to render a web part:

  1. Handling that department file
  2. Crawling the profile store
  3. Building a profile render block
  4. Building the chart

Now, We Tweak

In the rest of this article, I'm going to look at each of the sections I described above, tell you how the original code worked, and show you what I did to update them. While I won't embed the entire source in the article, you can easily download it if you want to examine everything in context.

On the Department File

For now, I'm just going to say that while the idea of mapping the department information in the profile to department home pages is admirable, the way it was implemented was causing some serious performance issues, and would be a long-term maintenance headache. Therefore, I commented out the two lines that actually make use of it (249 and 267 in my updated file), and replaced the link rendering with a simple text rendering. Here are the original and replaced lines from the updated code ( 267, 268).

//this.department = config.Find(EmptyIfNull(Profile[PropertyConstants.Department]));
this.department = EmptyIfNull(Profile[PropertyConstants.Department]);

"config.Find" is part of a config object that is defined elsewhere in the code. For purposes of this article, though, we're just going to ignore it.

Crawling the Profile Store

The profile crawl itself takes place in a function called PopulateOrg(). Examining this routine, a few things stand out.

First, there are two different ways for nodes to be added to the chart. One uses information read from a user's profile, the other feeds static information into a node. (This is used primarily to display an error message, if needed.)

Second, the population routine reads the entire profile store in one fell swoop. Combined with the inefficiency of the department link mapping mentioned above, this is a big part of the performance limiting the part to organizations with 500 or fewer profiles.

Finally, hidden in this routine (but commented out) is a nice little set of sample data.

At its core, an organization is a hierarchy. A hierarchy is made of parents and children. Technically, as long as you know the parent of each node, you can manually construct the organization. This is the approach originally taken by this web part.

foreach (UserProfile pf in pmManager)
{
     Details dt = new Details();
     dt.AddProfile(pf, this.Page.Request);

     if (dt.TrimFullName != String.Empty)
         employeeList.Add(dt);

}

However, a UserProfile object itself has methods for listing its children and ancestors directly. This means that we can easily start at any point in the tree, and generate the organization descendent from it, as well as the chain of command above it.

The ancestors are represented in a single collection, called through the GetManagers() method. The first level of children are just as easily retrieved with the GetDirectReports() method. However, if we want more than one level of child, we would then need to call the GetDirectReports() method for each child returned in the previous call.

If you try doing this with loops, things can get complicated pretty quickly. However, there is a simple way to to handle an arbitrary number of child nodes, to an arbitrary depth. This is a technique called "recursion". Essentially, you create a function that calls itself. In order to keep it from running forever, one of the parameters that should be passed to a recursive function should be a "depth" limiter. Within the function, the child calls decrement this limiter, and stop calling when it reaches a threshold level. In my update, I create the recursive function addChildren(). This takes the starting profile, and the depth limiter as parameters.

protected void addChildren(UserProfile Parent, int levels)
{
    try
    {
        foreach (UserProfile pf in Parent.GetDirectReports())
        { 
           Details dt = new Details();
            dt.AddProfile(pf, this.Page.Request, false);

            if (dt.TrimFullName != String.Empty)
            {
                employeeList.Add(dt);
                if (levels > 0)
                    addChildren(pf, levels - 1);
            }
        }
    }
    catch (Exception ex)
    {
        AddInList("1", "", "Error", "", ex.Message); 
    }
}

Notice also that I have added a parameter to the AddProfile method of the details (dt) object. This third parameter allows me to force the profile being added to act as a root, or top-level, node. (This is used for the management chain of command.)

Giving Your Users Choices

Looking at the stuff I've described in the preceding section, there is something very different from the original implementation - instead of crawling the whole profile store, I crawl a specified subsection. That requires two pieces of input - the node I plan to start with, and how deep I want to crawl.

Fortunately, when you create SharePoint Web parts, you can easily allow the user to enter configuration information. In this case, I am actually going to give the user three options. The third will allow the user to show the sample data instead of the active directory. (Naturally, I uncommented the sample population section, and wrapped the two population methods in an if...else block.)

To add a property to a web part, you add some descriptive information to say how the property is to be displayed. You also set up a public property variable to appear in the configuration pane, and a private variable to use in your code. The private variable can include a default value. The public property includes a get and a set block. While these three properties simply take the value as given, you will see later that this isn't the only option.

[Personalizable(PersonalizationScope.Shared)]
[WebBrowsable(true)]
[System.ComponentModel.Category("Org Chart Settings")]
[WebDisplayName("StartProfile")]
[WebDescription("Enter the top user to display:")]
public string StartProfile
{
    get
    {
        return startProfile;
    }
    set { startProfile = value; }
}
private string startProfile;

[Personalizable(PersonalizationScope.Shared)]
[WebBrowsable(true)]
[System.ComponentModel.Category("Org Chart Settings")]
[WebDisplayName("ChartDepth")]
[WebDescription("Subordinate levels to display:")]
public int ChartDepth
{
    get
    {
        return chartDepth;
    }
    set { chartDepth = value; }
}
private int chartDepth = 1;

[Personalizable(PersonalizationScope.Shared)]
[WebBrowsable(true)]
[System.ComponentModel.Category("Org Chart Settings")]
[WebDisplayName("Show Sample Data")]
[WebDescription("Show sample data instead of profile info:")]
public bool ShowSample
{
    get
    {
        return showSample;
    }
    set { showSample = value; }
}
private bool showSample = true;

This is how the properties look in the Web part configuration pane. The "CacheTime" parameter was included in the original part (though it is unused in the code). I'll discuss the "Left To Right" parameter later.

image

You might also notice that I set the default value of showSample to true. This allows the user to place the web part on the page and see a reasonable representation of its function, without needing to first set the start point and depth.

image 

Note: The chart initially renders with only the first layer of children open. I expanded it for this screen shot.

Rendering a Profile

Each node on the chart is constructed of HTML. The HTML is assembled in the ReturnItem() function.

I wanted to enable two functions not already present - showing the user's profile picture, and allowing the user to "re-home" the chart on another node in order to enable navigation of the entire organization in convenient sections. This meant I needed to add two properties to the details object, and then add the code to display these properties appropriately in the chart.

In order to make the re-home function work, I added an override to the StartProfile. Essentially, if there is a rootuser query string parameter, the profile specified there will be used instead of the one set in the web part property. The SetRoot link calls the current page with rootuser set to the selected profile.

In addition to the actual HTML, however, the look of the node contents are controlled by styles defined in the ECOTree.css file. In order to allow the picture to render, as well as permitting the text to fit, I needed to modify the .econode class in this file as follows.

.econode {
    text-overflow: clip;
    font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
    font-size: xx-small;
        color: White;
    padding: 2px;
}

Rendering the Chart

Just as we built up a node by assembling the HTML, the chart itself is built by assembling JavaScript. One of the things I did was to examine the functions provided by the ECOTree library. I found that it offered a lot of flexibility that wasn't currently in use. I felt the most important was the ability to set the orientation. Here's where that "Left to Right" checkbox comes into play. The library uses a parameter .RO_TOP or RO_LEFT to decide whether the chart is top to bottom, or left to right.

This is the code that reads and sets that web part parameter:

[Personalizable(PersonalizationScope.Shared)]
[WebBrowsable(true)]
[System.ComponentModel.Category("Org Chart Settings")]
[WebDisplayName("Left To Right")]
[WebDescription("Root at left, otherwise at top:")]
public bool RootLeft
{
    get
    {
        if (chartOrient == "LEFT")
        {
            return true;
        }
        else
        {
            return false;
        }
    }
    set
    {
        if (value)
        {
            chartOrient = "LEFT";
        }
        else
        {
            chartOrient = "TOP";
        }
    }
}
private string chartOrient = "TOP";

This demonstrates the kind of things you can do with the get and set blocks of a parameter. The user gets to the see the checkbox that represents a binary choice, but the internal variable is a string, meaning that we can render the part simply appending the string value without inserting an "if" block.

myTree.config.iRootOrientation = ECOTree.RO_");
sb.Append(chartOrient);
sb.Append(@";

The Results

The image below shows you how the revised chart looks with the same profile store shown in the first image.

image

This is a much more manageable presentation. It allows the user to drill into the organization as needed, and since we set the starting node on our CEO, those conference rooms who don't report to anybody are nowhere to be found.

I hope this article has shown you how easy it is to stand upon the shoulders of giants when looking for features to add to SharePoint. I built upon the CodePlex OrgChartPart, which itself leveraged the ECOTree charting library.

There are many more things you could do with this web part. You could add options to select the color of the nodes, for example. Or give users a check-box to render the entire organization at once, as the original part did.

The options are limited only by your imagination!