问题描述
我正在学习 SharePoint 以及您可以部署的不同类型的解决方案.从我正在观看的培训来看，您似乎应该尽可能地使用沙盒解决方案.这是因为 Farm Solutions 会把事情搞得一团糟.
I am learning SharePoint and the different kind of solutions you can deploy. From the training I am watching it seems like you should try your best to use a Sandbox Solution when ever possible. This is because Farm Solutions can mess things up too much.
但是，沙盒解决方案不支持我使用 WebParts 做的两个主要事情.这些是 Visual WebParts 和 WebPart 通信.(第一个是不允许的，因为它需要访问文件系统，第二个是不允许的，因为它使用反射).
However, two of the main things I would do with WebParts are not supported in Sandbox Solutions. Those are Visual WebParts and WebPart communication. (The first is not allowed because it needs to hit the file system and the second is disallowed because it uses reflection).
在我看来，我的 WebParts 总是想做至少其中一件事情.(不进行通信的 WebParts 不是真正的模块化吗?)
It seems to me that my WebParts will always want to do at least one of those things. (WebParts that don't communicate are not really that modular are they?)
我是不是没抓住重点，还是沙盒解决方案是一个好主意"，但并未真正用于实际代码中?
Am I missing the point or are Sandbox Solutions a "nice idea" that are not really used in actual code?
推荐答案
是的，我同意您的观点，即沙盒解决方案的限制性很强.
Yes, I agree with you that Sandbox solutions are very restrictive.
但是，正是这种限制赋予了它们价值.由于沙盒解决方案的限制，它无法摧毁一个农场(至少理论上是这样，有人可能会找到办法做到这一点).
But, it is that restriction that gives them their value. Due to the restrictions a Sandboxed solution cannot bring down a farm (atleast that is the theory, someone may find a way to do it).
这意味着您可以向更多用户开放以在场上部署内容.将内容部署到 SharePoint Online 也是一项要求.
This means that you can open up to many more users to deploy things on the farm. It is also a requirement to deploy things to SharePoint Online.
沙盒解决方案更具限制性，意味着开发更加繁琐，您必须以自己的方式绕过限制.这使得解决方案更加昂贵.因此，除非您有充分的理由不使用它，否则默认值应为 farm.
That Sandbox solutions are more restrictive, means that development is more cumbersome, you have to program your way around the restrictions. This makes solutions more expensive. Therefore, the default should be farm unless you have a good reason not to use it.
这篇关于沙盒解决方案似乎太严重了的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！