Comments on: Content Query Web Part vs. Custom Aggregation Web Part

By: Waldek Mastykarz

Waldek Mastykarz — Tue, 27 May 2008 14:30:32 +0000

You're welcome, TJ. Good luck

By: TJ

TJ — Tue, 27 May 2008 13:27:40 +0000

That's excellent, much appreciated.

It seems I have chosen the correct route this time. Extending the CQWP and adding a few extra fields to allow customization. I will then use the values to build a CAML query and set the QueryOverride property to the built CAML.

Thanks for your reply and advice.

By: Waldek Mastykarz

Waldek Mastykarz — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:00:37 +0000

If it's only query that you need to extend, you could try using the QueryOverride property. It basically allows you to use raw CAML query. The downside is, the end users won't be able to use the GUI to modify the query, unless you extend the standard CQWP and add an extra field to the ToolPart which will expose the QueryOverride property.

Extending the CQWP with the missing functionality is definitely a way to go. We have seen such approaches in many scenario's including the MSIT web site. Also Andrew Connell (MOSS MVP) shows CQWP customization using that approach.

As for the WSS Web Part, I think that it's all about compatibility. Yes, the WSS Web Part provides some extra functionality but the reusability is less comparing to the ASP.NET Web Part.

The test files: unfortunately, some time ago my hard drive has crashed. It contained the only copy of the test Web Parts. I've been thinking of rebuilding the whole case, but there are some other projects I have to work on. I would still like to answer your questions regarding the article.

By: TJ

TJ — Fri, 23 May 2008 13:19:26 +0000

Nice article.

I'm in the process of needing to take something like the content query web part but add a little more functionality to it. I need to add a more complex query than it by default it allows.

Initially I have set out by inheriting from the Content Query Web Part itself and are building on that. Would you recommend this as being an OK method?

Secondly if there are such positives to be gained from using the SharePoint base web part why do Microsoft recommend against doing such a thing?

Thirdly, any chance your test files from the above could be published for download?

Many thanks

By: Waldek Mastykarz

Waldek Mastykarz — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:17:07 +0000

Hello Jeff,

Thank you for your comment.
I have indeed used the GetSiteData method as it's the only method available in the CrossListQueryCache to aggregate data. The results have surprised me as well. Because the CrossListQueryCache class is being used by the Content Query Web Part I expected comparable results – just like you. Unfortunately looking at how the Content Query Web Part works didn't take me any further. So any suggestions are welcome!

By: Jeff Dalton

Jeff Dalton — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:26:21 +0000

Which overload did you use on the CrossListQueryCache.GetSiteData routine. I ask because the overloads work differently. For example if you just used the CrossListQueryCache.GetSiteData(SPWeb) that is just the SPWeb.GetSiteData.

I'm asking because the numbers for CrossListQueryCache seem odd. I would have expected them to be the same as either SPWeb.GetSiteData or the Content By Query web part.

By: Waldek Mastykarz

Waldek Mastykarz — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:33:59 +0000

Thank you for your comment Mart. On one hand not everyone has access to/uses search while developing Publishing Sites on SharePoint 2007. That's why it didn't show up in my test case in the first place. On the other hand it is definitely a plausible approach to use Search for data aggregation. I haven't researched the Search mechanism yet, but will definitely give it a try. Thanks for the tip!

By: Mart Muller

Mart Muller — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:57:54 +0000

Hi Waldek,
Interesting article. For SPS 2003 (which had not something like a site query thingy), we often used the SharePoint Search for generating overviews. For example, get all the agenda items in calendar lists.

I wonder how this approach will perform in MOSS 2007 compared with the methods you describe.

Anyway, nice article!
Mart

By: Waldek Mastykarz

Waldek Mastykarz — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 21:41:45 +0000

You're welcome

By: Robin

Robin — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:05:33 +0000

Hi Waldek,

thank you for taking the time to do some detailed analysis about this matter!

Cheers,

Robin