Deploying when using \"Direct Binding\"

Home Page Forums BizTalk 2004 – BizTalk 2010 Deploying when using \"Direct Binding\"

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    • #13019

      I ran into an interesting issue today at a client. We are deploying from dev to QA. I’m used to orchestrations being bound to receive ports and send ports, so when you do an export of an assembly, the binding file contains all the ports.

      With direct binding for instance, a receive port receives a message, then several orchestrations have filters that could receive that message. Thus those orchestrations are not \”bound\” to that receive port.

      Well, it looks like when you use direct binding, the export has now way of knowing which ports relate to which orchestrations.

      So what is the easy way to create the binding files for the \”loose/unattached\” ports.

      Also, can you have a binding file that has ports without orchestrations? In other words, could I build a totally separate binding file for the \”loose/unattached\” ports?

      Neal Walters

    • #13020

      Thanks – I forgot about the option \”Export items not associated with any asembly\”. At my last client, everything was tied to orchestrations and I had written a nice VBScript to generate all the syntax (so I was starting to forget what the Deploy utility does).

      Neal Walters

      • #13021

        We had an MSMQT port that was not picked up by using this technique.


        • #13022


          You can export the bindings for all unattached ports using the deployment wizard.
          You can edit this file to remove the extraneous ports. And you just have a separate binding file for those ports that you are interested in.

          If your assembly has a binding file already for any bound ports you can include the unattached ports (cut & paste) into this binding file. This makes deployment much easier with just one binding file to import.

          Biztalk 2006 has a much better concept of \”Application\” where you can export bindings based of a user defined application structure rather than the Biztalk 2004 concept of exporting ports bound to an assembly OR all the other ports

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • The forum ‘BizTalk 2004 – BizTalk 2010’ is closed to new topics and replies.