index > Visual Studio Tools for Office > Using VSTO to package/deploy Outlook Add-Ins

Using VSTO to package/deploy Outlook Add-Ins

I'm new to add-ins and have not used VSTO before. Can someone pls confirm my understanding of the following with regard to VSTO and Outlook:

1. You can only deploy to Outlook 2003 (and later).

2. You have to ensure users have a number of prerequisites before they install your VSTO-developed add-in:

- .NET 2.0

- Outlook 2003 SP 1

- Outlook 2003 Primary Interop Assemblies (redist)

- VSOT run time

3. You have to purchase VSOT ($550 for upgrade).

So, aside from the loss of backward compatibility with pre 2003 versions of Outlook and the purchase cost (which is very unfortunate given that I've already paid $550 for VS Pro), are there other cons to using VSOT? Does VSOT make it very easy to transform VBA code to a professional deployable solution that will cause users/admin minimum fuss to deploy?

Thanks

Tad

Tadwick

I'm not an expert in this area, but since you've still not received a reply, here is my take on your questions:

1 - 3 are all correct.

(Note that the product is VSTO and not VSOT - just to avoid confusion if you get in discussions )

If you work with VB.NET, converting VBA code to managed code isn't difficult. Going from an "embedded" environment to an Add-in (whether VSTO or a COM Add-in created with something like VB6) does require some changes. An Add-in will definitely be easier to distribute and maintain. The following article may give you some idea of how deployment of a VSTO Add-in differs from what you're currently doing

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/odc_vsto2005_ta/html/Office_VSTOOutlookAdd-inArchitecture.asp

You might also want to ask in the following groups about pros/cons. There are a number of Outlook MVPs who use VSTO solutions and frequent these groups

http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.office.developer.outlook.vba&lang=en&cr=US

Cindy Meister

Cindy,

A belated thank you for your response.

Tad

Tadwick

reply 3