Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Chris,
This is out of the performance doc. of BTS 2006 from Microsoft, might be of help to you:
"Scaling out the message box from one to two SQL Server computers does not improve throughput because in this scenario, one server is dedicated as the primary message box. Every BizTalk Server group must have only one primary message box.
The primary message box handles all subscriptions and message routing, while other message boxes handle message publishing. Instance subscriptions (subscriptions that route messages to already-running instances on specific message box servers) are maintained on the primary message box and on the specific message box that hosts the particular instance.
To alleviate lock contentions, message publishing is disabled on the primary message box and only the other message boxes can publish messages. Therefore, overall system throughput does not improve because there is still only one server publishing messages.
Running multiple message boxes requires distributed transactions. Therefore, overall performance decreases from the additional network-traffic overhead."
Regards,
Sajid
You can create a receive location with a URI pointing to the virtual directory you set up on IIS for the Web Service, using SOAP or WSE
e.g. "/Test/WebService1.asmx"
If you publish the web service using biztalk webservice wizard, a prompt will pop up to ask if you'd like a receive location created for you, all be taken care of
Thanks for the quick reply jonflanders. I will check that post. This is limiting in terms of reusability. I thought of reusing my config frameworrk across different systems. .NET ConfigurationSection inrationherently supports serialization. I am not sure how it is doing when ConfigurationProperty is not serializable, where as the [ConfigurationProperty("")] attribute causes the config elements to serialize!! Confused.
I'm in favor of storing configuration in the SSO database – http://www.masteringbiztalk.com/blogs/jon/PermaLink,guid,6e4b84db-d15f-45e9-b245-08b1eb6c4def.aspx
i was trying this
/*[local-name()='Parent1']/*[local-name()='childBooks']/*[local-name()='childBook']/*[local-name()='interact'='104']/*[local-name()='books']
the short answer is no – there is no single functoid that will do this.
You can achieve the mapping result through a combination of functoids, but it will be difficult and will require someone with lots of BizTalk mapping experience to do it.
– weak architect
Maybe you should DTS the flat file into SQL Server. Is there any real reason to use BizTalk for this project, other than to say "I used BizTalk"?
Stable,
When I am ready to deploy from Visual Studio (after the compile) I:
1. Stop the solution (all instances) in BizTalk
2. Deploy the solution
3. Refresh in BizTalk
4. Start the solution in BizTalk
Haven't had any issues since I've been doing it this way.
Hope this helps.
hmm sounds good .. the only problem would be that the functoid only takes 9 parameteres and I got at least 12 …. popably an own functoid would be the best solution?
Hi Anonymous,
Maybe you should just load a table with the file and do all the work inside the sproc. No reason to fracture all this logic back and forth between the database and the map, is there?
– weak architect
Hello Stable,
Are you restarting the host instance after deploy to pick up the changes? This is necessary.
– weak architect
Good Morning Anonymous,
You can't do this nicely.
What you will need is two records
– one having structure WITH last field and delimiter
– the other having structure WITHOUT last field and delimiter
Make each optional. This way if it is not one, it is the other and the definition will have necessary structure to allow parse.
This would allow parse of the file, but problem is this would be a nightmare to map from. You could add another map to consolidate the forked record back to one single record.
Another solution is to preprocess and modify the file and add the missing delimiter when appropriate.
– weak architect
Aloha Anonymous,
Have the output of the scriptoid go to three sets of conditional value mappers.
First new functoid – green[=]; params (scriptoid output, "1")
Second new functoid – purple arrow [->]; params (logical "=" from above, scriptoid output)
attach output of [->] to "result1" field
Construct new identical groups of functoids for for result2 and result3, changing the [=] parameter to appropriately match "2" and "3".
– the one called 'weak architect'
PS – the value mapper functoid MUST have the logical as its first parameter or else it will fail. It is easy to reverse this order as you work with the functoids, so be mindful of this order.
