Comments on: Inconvenient Content Query Web Part vs. Lookup fields with multiple values http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/ Innovation Matters | SharePoint Server MVP | ISSN 2210-9390 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:00:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Marc D Anderson http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/comment-page-1/#comment-93170 Marc D Anderson Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:51:53 +0000 http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/#comment-93170 Waldek: All valid questions and concerns. As with anything, the specifics of your implementation are going to drive the answers. I tried to point out the potential performance issues and such in the post. (How many times did I use the word kludge???) The Web Seervices calls are fast, but as I mentioned, if there are going to be a large number of items, it makes send to batch the requests at least by list. What I've given is an example which can work; as usual, you mileage can vary. M. Waldek:

All valid questions and concerns. As with anything, the specifics of your implementation are going to drive the answers.

I tried to point out the potential performance issues and such in the post. (How many times did I use the word kludge???)

The Web Seervices calls are fast, but as I mentioned, if there are going to be a large number of items, it makes send to batch the requests at least by list. What I've given is an example which can work; as usual, you mileage can vary.

M.

]]> By: Waldek Mastykarz http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/comment-page-1/#comment-93107 Waldek Mastykarz Wed, 21 Sep 2011 05:28:51 +0000 http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/#comment-93107 @Marc: Thanks for the clever solution, Marc. There are however two things that concern me. First is the dependency on JavaScript that might be an issue on Internet-facing websites and having the content crawled by search engines. The second thing that I wonder about is how this solution would perform with let's say 30 or 40 records. Would it mean that there would be that many separate calls to the Web Services to get the page data displayed? @Marc: Thanks for the clever solution, Marc. There are however two things that concern me. First is the dependency on JavaScript that might be an issue on Internet-facing websites and having the content crawled by search engines.
The second thing that I wonder about is how this solution would perform with let's say 30 or 40 records. Would it mean that there would be that many separate calls to the Web Services to get the page data displayed?

]]> By: Marc D Anderson http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/comment-page-1/#comment-93084 Marc D Anderson Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:25:44 +0000 http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/#comment-93084 Waldek: I know that this is quite an old post, but I\'ve come up with a kludgy workaround, in case anyone decides they need it. http://sympmarc.com/2011/09/20/displaying-multi-select-column-values-in-crosslist-dvwps/ Thanks for the help! M. Waldek:

I know that this is quite an old post, but I\'ve come up with a kludgy workaround, in case anyone decides they need it.

http://sympmarc.com/2011/09/20/displaying-multi-select-column-values-in-crosslist-dvwps/

Thanks for the help!

M.

]]> By: Marc D Anderson http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/comment-page-1/#comment-93083 Marc D Anderson Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:25:29 +0000 http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/#comment-93083 Waldek: I know that this is quite an old post, but I've come up with a kludgy workaround, in case anyone decides they need it. http://sympmarc.com/2011/09/20/displaying-multi-select-column-values-in-crosslist-dvwps/ Thanks for the help! M. Waldek:

I know that this is quite an old post, but I've come up with a kludgy workaround, in case anyone decides they need it.

http://sympmarc.com/2011/09/20/displaying-multi-select-column-values-in-crosslist-dvwps/

Thanks for the help!

M.

]]> By: Displaying Multi-Select Column Values in CrossList DVWPs » Marc D Anderson's Blog http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/comment-page-1/#comment-93082 Displaying Multi-Select Column Values in CrossList DVWPs » Marc D Anderson's Blog Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:19:56 +0000 http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/#comment-93082 [...] http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/ (Waldek Mastykarz) [...] [...] http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/ (Waldek Mastykarz) [...]

]]> By: Mud83 http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/comment-page-1/#comment-45239 Mud83 Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:05:44 +0000 http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/#comment-45239 Ram is just a example. It is value of the list. But now I am calling the list by changing the common view field property and defining the list in the itemstyle.xsl file. Anyway thanks. Ram is just a example. It is value of the list.

But now I am calling the list by changing the common view field property and defining the list in the itemstyle.xsl file.
Anyway thanks.

]]> By: Waldek Mastykarz http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/comment-page-1/#comment-44908 Waldek Mastykarz Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:56:39 +0000 http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/#comment-44908 @Mud83: Ram is not a valid CAML query. Is it literally what you're uploading or was it just an example? @Mud83: Ram is not a valid CAML query. Is it literally what you're uploading or was it just an example?

]]> By: Mud83 http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/comment-page-1/#comment-44901 Mud83 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:36:21 +0000 http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/#comment-44901 I want to embed a CAML query in the CQWP. I am doing that by changing the queryoverride property. eg - "<![CDATA[Ram]]" in the WebPart file. But when I am trying to upload it, it is giving me the following error - "The file you imported is not valid. Verify that the file is a Web Part description file (*.webpart or *.dwp) and that it contains well-formed XML." . Please help. I want to embed a CAML query in the CQWP.
I am doing that by changing the queryoverride property.
eg – "<![CDATA[Ram]]" in the WebPart file. But when I am trying to upload it, it is giving me the following error – "The file you imported is not valid. Verify that the file is a Web Part description file (*.webpart or *.dwp) and that it contains well-formed XML." . Please help.

]]> By: Waldek Mastykarz http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/comment-page-1/#comment-42262 Waldek Mastykarz Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:07:00 +0000 http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/#comment-42262 @Kevin: Unfortunately it doesn't change anything about working with Multiple Lookup fields. The reason why that cannot be changed has to do with how the query mechanism works: not really something we could do much about. Custom XSLT function++: that would definitely mean subclassing the CQWP. Only that way it would be possible to create and hook up that XSLT function. @Kevin: Unfortunately it doesn't change anything about working with Multiple Lookup fields. The reason why that cannot be changed has to do with how the query mechanism works: not really something we could do much about.

Custom XSLT function++: that would definitely mean subclassing the CQWP. Only that way it would be possible to create and hook up that XSLT function.

]]> By: Kevin Gunther-Canada http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/comment-page-1/#comment-42059 Kevin Gunther-Canada Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:04:33 +0000 http://blog.mastykarz.nl/inconvenient-content-query-web-part-lookup-fields-multiple-values/#comment-42059 >I take it that this doesn't really solve the problem of querying for things based on values in the multiple lookup? That's a question that often comes up. Andy: Embedding a valid CAML query in the XML of the web part usually gives us the ability to deal with the problem of querying Lookup columns with the CQWP. Interestingly, we found that when constructing the CAML, we had to make sure we the query uses (versus ) and the value type=text. FWIW, we have been using the CBQ Override (part of the Podcasting Kit) to simplify our use of custom CAML queries for the CQWP. >Custom XSLT function++ Waldek: So am I understanding you to say that we can extract the XML returned from the query in the XSL template and potentially extract the values that way? Or is this requiring subclassing the CQWP somehow to achieve this result? >I take it that this doesn't really solve the problem of querying for things based on values in the multiple lookup? That's a question that often comes up.

Andy: Embedding a valid CAML query in the XML of the web part usually gives us the ability to deal with the problem of querying Lookup columns with the CQWP. Interestingly, we found that when constructing the CAML, we had to make sure we the query uses (versus ) and the value type=text. FWIW, we have been using the CBQ Override (part of the Podcasting Kit) to simplify our use of custom CAML queries for the CQWP.

>Custom XSLT function++
Waldek: So am I understanding you to say that we can extract the XML returned from the query in the XSL template and potentially extract the values that way? Or is this requiring subclassing the CQWP somehow to achieve this result?

]]>