SLK 1.3.1 - LG compatibility

Topics: Developer Forum, Project Management Forum, User Forum
Aug 4, 2008 at 9:29 AM
The only release of the Learning Gateway includes a 1.3.0 SLK sharepointlearningkit.wsp replacement. I appreciate it's only a beta release but what is the situation with SLK 1.3.1, is this not compatible with LG or does the sharepointlearningkit.wsp bundled with it incorporate changes made for LG?
Aug 26, 2008 at 4:22 AM
1.3.1 has work specifically to make integration with LG possible -- support for the Observer Role which was added to a customized version of SLK by the LG folks a while back.  That said, I'm not intimately familar with LG so I don't know if there are further integration steps required to get SLK 1.3.1 working with the LG bits.
Aug 27, 2008 at 1:30 PM
LG is coordinated by Microsoft and marketed, as is the SLK, perhaps there should be some serious coordination discussions here as this is causing some major headaches in the market place and is not good for all involved! 
Aug 27, 2008 at 8:13 PM

You make a good point and I've forwarded this thread to the appropriate MLG contact inside Microsoft.

 - jcb

Aug 27, 2008 at 8:50 PM

OK, Cliff Lloyd at Microsoft is a Coordinator of the Learning Gateway project.  He's looked into this issue a little and has this analysis:

"The MLG provides a cool feature that lets you provision a course site in a single action that auto provisions SLK as part of the template.   Without this feature, a school would have to manually set up SLK for each active class which was a major pain point.  The problem is that the way Sharepoint templates work is that you must associate a web part to a template inside a file called ONET.XML – the association is made based on a specific version for a registered “safe” web part.  As this version changes with each SLK release, the auto provisioning breaks."

Here are the actions I'm taking based on your feedback:

1.  I've asked Cliff to make me a coordinator on the MLG project since I'm fairly involved with Codeplex :-)  Cliff has agreed.
2.  I've suggested that we can use the community to make updates to MLG in the same way the community is making updates to SLK.  Cliff was looking to paying a vendor to make this change to MLG and for various reasons it hasn't happened yet.
3.  Once I'm co-ordinator on the MLG Codeplex site, I will clean it up to make it easier to accept submissions.  I define this as:
    a.  Changing the license from a custom license (which is very permissive) to the same license SLK uses -- the MsPL -- which is an OSI approved license which can genuinely be refered to as "Open Source".
    b.  Moving the source code from a Zip file into the Codeplex repository so we'll get proper change tracking, source control, patch support, etc.

This will enable a community member to not only bring MLG and SLK back in sync, but will also allow you to start moving forward the functionality of MLG in the same way that you have SLK.

 - jcb

Aug 27, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Great, this is what is needed!
Aug 27, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Edited Aug 27, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Jay, thanks for sorting this out .. hopefully will make our lives easier!
Nov 12, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Jay, when can we expect the actions you have implemented or started the ball rolling on to take effect?  Especially getting the MLG SLK versions in sync?
Feb 16, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Hi Richard,

What is the current state of 1.3.1 compatbility with the MLG? I see that since 1.3.1 was released it now has upgrade utilities that purport to allow you to upgrade the database schema from the SLK version used in the MLG release, and to also upgrade the web parts on the sites to the 1.3.1 version. I'm guessing this would give you a working version of the MLG with SLK 1.3.1, with the exception that newly provisioned sites created by the MLG would still have the old version of the web parts in them, and so you would need run the web part upgrade utility on each of those sites afterwards? I see there is a patch for the MLG to make it work with SLK, is a similar patch thus needed to make the MLG work with version 1.3.1 so that it provisions the correct version of the web parts?

Has anyone attempted this yet?

Due to the bugs in the zip compression routines for the old version of the SLK which cause many SCORM packages to be unusable, its important that MLG users be able to use this latest release of the SLK. (Note, when a zip file fails to be decompressed by the SLK, rather than returning an error it simply punts and reacts as if the file is not a SCORM package, presenting the user with the file download dialog box.)


Feb 16, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Hi Todd,

That's what I'm working on next. Getting MLG updated so that it works with 1.3.1, among other bits and pieces for it. It needs updating so that the site templates use the latest version of SLK and so that My Planner does as well.

SLK Co-ordinator
Feb 17, 2009 at 6:43 PM
Hi Richard,
what is the expected timeframe on the templates and the My Planner.  It appears that everything else is set except this.
Feb 21, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Hi Neil,

As per your suggestion I'm going to use the thread to talk about LG & SLK compatibility rather then post on both the SLK & LG sites.