Lamont Harrington's Blog

Having answered this question I know about 100 times (at least it's good that there now is a Microsoft Knowledge Base article that explains the process!

Enjoy!

Ran across this informative Microsoft Knowledge Base article that gives step-by-step instructions on how to rename a computer that's already running SharePoint Portal Server 2003.  I can't count how many times I've been asked that question (even recently).  I thought about writing a post that describes the steps, however, this article was right on time

Enjoy!

Article URL: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;830970

If you are developing custom web parts that need to connect to a SQL Server database to retrieve data, you may be confronted with the following error:

{"Request for the permission of type System.Data.SqlClient.SqlClientPermission, System.Data, Version=1.0.5000.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089 failed." }

This is due to SharePoint Portal Server and Windows SharePoint Services implementation of .NET Code Access Security (CAS).  A solution that addresses the aforementioned error is cited below:

• Locate and open the wss_minimaltrust.config file (NOTE: If you've gone with the default SharePoint or WSS install, this file is located at <INSTALL_DRIVE>:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Server Extensions\60\Config)
  
  
• Add the following element to the SecurityClasses section of this config file:
  
  

  <SecurityClass Name="SqlClientPermission"
    Description="System.Data.SqlClient.SqlClientPermission, System.Data,
    Version=1.0.5000.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089"
  />
  

• In the PermissionSet section of this configuration file, add the following:
  
  

  <IPermission class="SqlClientPermission" version="1"
    Unrestricted="true" />

If you still run into the error, try adding these settings to the wss_mediumtrust.config file.

Hopefully, this will save someone hours of web part debugging time.

It appears that my original post regarding my disappointment in the current beta of Telligent Systems' Community Server solution has sparked a lot of good commentary from bloggers in the community.  And although I've not met him yet, being the class act I'm sure he is, Rob Howard chimed in with his two cents.  As I mentioned in my original post, I knew that those guys are committed to delivering quality product.  I'm glad Rob took the time to read my concerns and those of others who've not been too impressed with what they've seen in the early Community Server betas to date.

Here's Rob's comment taken from my original post:

“Hi Lamont,

Thanks for taking the time to write this up - this is a great post :)

Believe it or not integrating the 3 applications was a tremendous amount of work and we said from the beginning – back in July - that the goal was parity and that this was not a feature oriented release. Integrating all 3 systems together and enabling that system to run within DotNetNuke was the goal. I believe we’ve accomplished that goal. We have one integrated membership, permissions system, data access layer, component layer, and common/shared features. Another key goal for version 1.0 was to allow the 3 systems to operate independently, e.g. you could run ‘just a blog’ or ‘just a forum’.

Our vision for Community Server isn’t short-sighted; rather we knew that putting the legwork into the first vision to bring the systems together would allow us to rapidly add integration features in the next version (which we are already planning).

What you’ve described as your vision for Community Server is exactly what we have planned. In fact, I think there are many more opportunities that you did not cover. For example, we’re building in email listserv integration to allow forum discussions or blog posts to be made via email. We’re building an NNTP server to allow for reading forums through Outlook Express. We’ve built an FTP server to more easily manage content in the gallery. In our next version we’re going to start tying the various system together, example creating a photo gallery or file gallery integrated with both forums and blogging. Adding features such as ‘Blog This’ to easily take content found in other areas and turn it into a blog posting.

One of the above comments [taken from the blogger comments on this post] is that .Text is a dead product. That couldn’t be further from the truth. If anything we’ve made .Text a better product in Community Server. You can still run the blogging feature of Community Server as a stand-alone system (see above for goals for version 1.0). In fact we’ll be updating blogs.msdn.com to use Community Server (blogs only) in the next several months.

The point you made about bringing together all of this without the overhead of normal shrink wrapped products is dead-on. We’ve already invested a tremendous amount of time and money into Community Server. Building product is hard. Getting honest and critical feedback from the .NET community that we can use to improve it makes it worthwhile.

Finally, I would invite you to join our community at www.communityserver.org or send me feedback rhoward @ telligentsystems.com. Again, we’re trying really, really hard to build a great product and our version 1.0 product is not a feature oriented release. Keep giving us your feedback and ideas – we listen!”

I'm really interested in seeing where this product goes in the future.  It has some awesome potential.  It is my hope that initiatives such as these will even help my new company drive more innovation and features to further improve the out-of-the-box experience for customers with our respective products and solutions centered around collaboration and knowledge management.

I encourage others to voice their opinions on the direction of .Text and Community Server as the folks over at Telligent Systems are listening.  They've seen our pain and appear to be trying to ease the pain.

NOTE: This blog post was moved from its previous location on dotnetjunkies.com/weblog/lamont_harrington. It was posted in January 2005

Over the past couple weeks, I've been playing around with Beta 3 of Telligent Systems open-source "collaboration and knowledge management platform", Community Server, and quite frankly I'm a little disappointed.  Community Server is not so much a v1.0 product as it is a combination of vN.N (where N.N is the latest version) of the 3 products that comprise its application architecture (CS::Forums, CS::Blogs, and CS::Gallery).

Because this open-source project has been cooking for some time now, I expected to see a lot more integration between the three applications.  Right now, Community Server just looks more like 3 applications bundled together in a single install rather than one unified collaborative, knowledge management platform.  Rather than pushing Community Server in its current form, I think it would have been more beneficial to simply improve upon the 3 respective apps first (e.g. fix bugs, add enhancments, etc) and then plot out a solid roadmap for integrating the applications. 

No disrespect to CS::Forums or CS::Gallery, but perhaps the most critical and hence most important piece of this solution is CS::Blogs (a.k.a. .Text) Why? Because this application is perhaps one of the hottest open-source solutions on the internet and is used by number of large community sites as well as individuals.  New blogs are springing up everyday and 9 times out of 10 its using some build of .Text.  Community websites are being introduced almost monthly and simply serve as a "wrapper" around the .Text engine.

My "vision" for Community Server would consist of more deep integration between Forums, Blogs, and Gallery to the extent where each respective application is "transparent" to the end-user.  For example, look at CS::Blogs and CS::Gallery and compare it to MSN Spaces.  One of the cool aspects of MSN Spaces is the synergy between the concept of the blog and the concept of the photo gallery.  The photo gallery is simply a "component" that is made available on the blog and is accessible at anytime without performing additional clicks resulting in a totally different user interface (as evident in the Community Server beta).  For those of you out there who are familiar with SharePoint Portal Server 2003, there is a concept of a "My Site".  In a nutshell, the "My Site" represents a "mini-portal" which serves as the end-users personal workspace for sharing content, fostering community collaboration, and a whole host of other possibilities.  MSN Spaces makes an attempt to bring that concept to a much larger audience.  Community Server, in my opinion, could extend this concept even further through the introduction of "CommunityServer Sites" where each registered user would essentially have their own "mini-portal" which could contain their blog content, their photo gallery, links to favorite websites or the Community Server site of a friend, colleague, or industry figure and basically have that all encapsulated in a single uniform UI.

Imagine this: Through this type of architecture, as a part of a user's Community Server Site, he/she could have an "aggregator-like" component that allows him/her to read and post comments on their favorite blogs without having to fire up a separate application to view RSS feeds.  Now this aggregator component would only be displayed in the "private view" of the registered user's Community Server site.  The private view of a CommunityServer site would be accessible once a user has logged in.  A user would only be able to see their own private site, however, they would have the freedom to browse the "public view" of any user's Community Server site.

To take this concept one step further.  On a public view of a user's Community Server Site, he/she can have a component that displays their favorite forums (this is where the integration of CS::Forums could come into play).  All of this architecture, however, is completely transparent to the user in that they would see the site as one continuous application which promotes a more consistent user experience.

Also imagine this: As a part of the architecture, the appropriate hooks can be built in to integrate either the parent Community Server platform, or the individual Community Server site into your favorite Office application for example.  Let's say someone writing a design document on some complex application architecture, and they want to collaborate on application design best practices with other folks who may potentially have designed and/or built something similar.  Well through some "add-in" into Microsoft Word, one could have the ability to either post or create a new forum and discuss this document.  This type of concept is what makes Windows SharePoint Services so compelling within the enterprise.

Now I'm not writing this post to glorify the Microsoft products that mark our entry into the collaboration and knowledge management space, however, I do want to bring attention to solutions such as these as well as those provided by other vendors to motivate those who participate in open source initiatives to try and improve upon these solutions' weaknesses and extend their strengths in new and innovative ways.  One could also make the argument “Well, Lamont, they are not trying to compete with Microsoft, but rather provide an alternative where the community can contribute.“  I totally respect that point without question, however, this goes beyond products and companies, and is solely focused on adding value to the community.  For those in the community who may not be strong .NET developers and could tailor the solution to their liking, we must be mindful that there will be those out there who will opt for the “out-of-the-box“ experience.  Therefore, why not make the “out-of-the-box“ experience the best it possibly can be?  To me, this in itself would foster more interest in the project and foster more innovation and contribution to the overall success of the solution.  I'm not going to speak for the folks at Telligent Systems, but I would be so bold to say that they want to deliver something to the community-at-large that adds value.  Especially, if at some point they'd like to turn a profit with Community Server.

Now let me say, that I commend Rob, Scott, Jason , and others for their efforts in trying to bring this type of solution to the community without the overhead that accompanies a shrink-wrapped product, however, I've seen efforts like this in the past, and have even participated in a few myself, and through my personal observations, they really didn't add the value that it could have.

Just a little food for thought.

What you do guys think?

- Lamont

NOTE: This blog post was moved from its previous location on dotnetjunkies.com/weblog/lamont_harrington. It was posted in January 2005