# Sunday, 26 May 2013

Back to C#

Three years ago, give or take, I was asked to help in assessing the technical choices for an interesting project.
The project aimed at realizing a platform (intranet, web) to help a company in dealing with all the quality-related processes and procedures; in particular, it should help in preparing and maintaining the high quality levels required by international standards (ISO-9001 and alike).

A very good friend of mine was asked to act as a program manager/product owner, and work as a proxy between the initial set of companies interested in the product (the customers) and the ISV that was in charge of developing the software.
My friend designed and detailed the specification for every aspect needed in the software, which was composed of three main modules: storage, review and approval processes for corporate documents and handbooks; collection, review and resolution of quality-related issues and process enhancement proposals; tracking and monitoring of supplies and suppliers.
All these processes follow nicely the pattern of a workflow: clear steps, with well defined responsibilities, and long-spans between steps. In short, reactive programs that need to be durable, recorded (for auditing) and persisted.

That said, we decided (in agreement with the ISV) to use Windows Workflow Foundations as a basic engine: it seemed a very good fit for the problem at hand. In particular, the ISV decided to use Sharepoint 2010 (which was in Beta, at that time). Personally, I think it was a good choice: I already had experience with WF, and SP seemed to offer all the missing bits and a lot of bells and whistles.

However, the ISV had no prior knowledge of SP 2010, and that showed in how they implemented the solution; it worked, but it required time to implement and was not nearly as flexible as expected. When faced with something more complex, something that required some effort to customize, they fell back to write custom code. A lot of code was written, and a little too much was hard-wired: for example, modifying a workflow (adding an activity, like "send an email", or exchanging two steps) should have been something easily done through the Sharepoint Designer, but ended up being something doable only with code, because most of the activities and the code to compose them was custom. Same for the web forms, for the workflow data (stored as XML data in custom SQL server tables instead of SP lists), for excel reports (which are provided out of the box... but only for SP lists).

Nonetheless, the software did its job, and did it quite well; the design phase was done carefully, and it met the expectations. More companies wanted to use it, and of course they wanted customizations and improvements.
I know all these details because I was asked to take over from were the ISV left, and help in bug fixing, modifications and deployment of new installations. It was hard, more that it should have been; some things that should have been done directly by the customers were possible only using code.
And deployment of Sharepoint solutions on top of an existing, running instance is a real, royal pain.
In short, we arrived at a point were some of the requests were simply not possible to fulfill. Some of the shortcomings are due to SP 2010 (more fine grained permissions and access control; less heavy footprint and resource usage; more custom user interface; easy and flexible deploy options) and we could not address them easily. Two features especially were a no-go for further development: deployment in a shared hosting environment (cloud?) and (linked to it) the ability to use a storage engine that was NOT SQL server.

Earlier this year, my friend and I met, and we decided to try and build a solution that was independent from SP, that retained the good bits (workflows, lists, reports) and improved upon them (adding more fined permissions and access control, workflows that were easier to author, persistence over different storage, a more modern UI).
We decided also to try and do it in what we thought was the right way, more for "fun" than for "profit": that meant no heavy pressure on times, the ability to learn new stuff (ASP.NET MVC, websockets,..) and to re-build some parts of the stack that we saw as necessary (I have a daily job for a living in a software company, so this project was just for fun and to keep my abilities sharp).
I was happy to have an opportunity to go back to C#, to keep my training on .NET going, and stay up-to-date on the latest  .NET technologies: it has been almost two years now without using C# professionally, and I was missing it! So, I said yes.
I decided also to keep a journal here, explaining what I have done and what I will do, what is working and what I will learn.

Next time: building a Sharepoint "clone"
OpenID
Please login with either your OpenID above, or your details below.
Name
E-mail
(will show your gravatar icon)
Home page

Comment (HTML not allowed)  

[Captcha]Enter the code shown (prevents robots):

Live Comment Preview