Feedback Requested: SmartPart v2 Breaking Changes

Son of SmartPart version 1.0 has been out there for quite some time now, so it’s time for an update. Since the last release I got tons of questions, feedback and requests, unfortunately they I haven’t been able to answer them all (they keep me very, very busy at U2U). Before I’m going to release the next update, I’d love to get some feedback of the SmartPart community. Let me know if you like or dislike the proposed changes or maybe you’ve got another request?

Change 1: ICellProviderUserControl and ICellConsumerUserControl
In the current version of the SmartPart it’s only possible to exchange string values between connectable web parts/user controls. This is because the ICellProviderUserControl and ICellConsumerUserControl interfaces explicitly determine that the type of the exchanged data is a string. Changing the type of the exchanged data from string to object would allow connected web parts to communicate all kinds of data.

Change 2: UserControls folder
The default location for storing user controls (.ascx files) is in the \UserControls folder (on the same level as for example \bin and \wpresources). If the default location is changed to \wpresources\SmartPart\UserControls this would give you the opportunity to package your user controls in a .cab file and deploy them by using the STSADM tool, just like you deploy normal web parts. In the current version the only deployment option is copying the files manually, so I think it would a great advantage. Read Riwut Libinuko’s article “Building CAB Project with Internal Directories Within VS.net IDE” for more info about this technique.

Change 3: Son of SmartPart name
I have to agree on this one, an assembly named SonOfSmartPart.dll doesn’t look very professional. I didn’t want to name the assembly just SmartPart.dll because it could collide with the SmartPart.dll of version 1 (you don’t have this issue if you deploy to the GAC, but not all people do that). So, shall we keep the name SonOfSmartPart? Or shall I rename everything (including assembly name, namespace, dwp’s) to SmartPart2 or SmartPart2005?

I’m looking forward to your thoughts on this, how it’s going to affect the work that you’ve already done and if you can live with the consequences. Thanks a lot for helping to make the SmartPart even better!!

4 Comments

  • Definitely yes on #1. I was doing some smartpart work recently, and found the string-only limitation rather onerous.

  • don't like son of smart part name.SmartPart2



    also a nice foolproof installation would be good.



    when an error occurs within a web control embedded in a smartpart, you just get a standard sharepoint error page. An ability to say what happened would be nice if debugging.

  • Change #1 would be highly appreciated from my side.



    Any idea on when this version will be released?

  • Jan,



    keep on doing a good job!!

    We are using smartpart for more than a year now, and it´s a real big help for us.



    Yes on #1 and #2.

    Smartpart2 looks the best to me.

Comments have been disabled for this content.