Comments for Gobbledygooks by Richard Hallgren http://www.richardhallgren.com .NET, BizTalk and integration focused scribbles Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:49:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 Comment on BAM ate my XML declaration! by Richard http://www.richardhallgren.com/bam-ate-my-xml-declaration/#comment-374 Richard Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:49:40 +0000 http://www.richardhallgren.com/bam-ate-my-xml-declaration/#comment-374 @Mikael Håkansson: No, right now I only know it's a problem in R2. I haven't had a chance to test in 2009 yet. Let me know if you do. @Mikael Håkansson: No, right now I only know it’s a problem in R2. I haven’t had a chance to test in 2009 yet. Let me know if you do.

]]> Comment on BAM ate my XML declaration! by Mikael Håkansson http://www.richardhallgren.com/bam-ate-my-xml-declaration/#comment-373 Mikael Håkansson Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:07:50 +0000 http://www.richardhallgren.com/bam-ate-my-xml-declaration/#comment-373 Have you verified if this behaviour exists in 2006, R2 and 2009? Have you verified if this behaviour exists in 2006, R2 and 2009?

]]> Comment on BAM ate my XML declaration! by Thiago Almeida http://www.richardhallgren.com/bam-ate-my-xml-declaration/#comment-370 Thiago Almeida Thu, 28 May 2009 21:08:55 +0000 http://www.richardhallgren.com/bam-ate-my-xml-declaration/#comment-370 Wow, that's pretty annoying indeed. Specially given the fact that you don't even use the message at all in the tracking profile. Thanks for sharing! Wow, that’s pretty annoying indeed. Specially given the fact that you don’t even use the message at all in the tracking profile. Thanks for sharing!

]]> Comment on BAM ate my XML declaration! by Antti Somersalo http://www.richardhallgren.com/bam-ate-my-xml-declaration/#comment-369 Antti Somersalo Thu, 28 May 2009 16:58:15 +0000 http://www.richardhallgren.com/bam-ate-my-xml-declaration/#comment-369 We had a similar problem and opened a case with MS. The problem is that BAM actually probes the message and if it looks like XML, the message will be processed like XML with all the nasty side effects you mentioned. I think it is a bug but very difficult get fixed because it is so deep in BAM implementation. MS proposed that we prefix the file with a space character, so BAM does not recogize it as XML. Obviously you have to strip that character away in the send pipeline. Not something we wanted to do. We had a similar problem and opened a case with MS. The problem is that BAM actually probes the message and if it looks like XML, the message will be processed like XML with all the nasty side effects you mentioned. I think it is a bug but very difficult get fixed because it is so deep in BAM implementation. MS proposed that we prefix the file with a space character, so BAM does not recogize it as XML. Obviously you have to strip that character away in the send pipeline. Not something we wanted to do.

]]> Comment on Does BizTalk have man-boobs? by Dexter Legaspi http://www.richardhallgren.com/does-biztalk-have-man-bobs/#comment-368 Dexter Legaspi Fri, 22 May 2009 12:46:06 +0000 http://www.richardhallgren.com/does-biztalk-have-man-bobs/#comment-368 actually, only points 1 & 4 are the only reasons to use BizTalk...and for one other reason: EXPANDABILITY what BizTalk gives you over other custom architecture, is that it provides you an underlying fail-safe and scalable archictecture without having to write code. you got the transactions, built-in queueing, retries, suspended message monitoring and even throttling if the system is suddenly overwhelmed with messages. these are the things that most developers are taking for granted and don't even realize that it's very difficult to implement. it's funny, because we started with BizTalk 2004 (moved to 2006 shortly) and some other group were laughing at us and they decided to write their own. Guess what? years later, the BizTalk 2006 systems are still chugging and the home-growned EAI app got replaced after a few years of headaches. now over to EXPANDABILITY, once you get to know how BizTalk works, 2 & 3 are hardly a reason. The tools are just enough, but not that compelling anymore when you find the shortcomings. For example, BizTalk maps are EASY, but very limited...Fortunately, you CAN reference an XSLT in your BizTalk map, which opens a whole lot of other options. Also, BizTalk has a number of Adapters and Pipeline components, but the beauty of this is Microsoft has a supported set of APIs and SDKs so you can easily roll your own Adapters and plug-ins! Microsoft could have easily decided to make this a black box, but they didn't...and that was an awesome decision. Now, having that said...BizTalk tech is on its last legs...since MS developed a better tech in the form of Workflows...and with "Dublin" coming, and WF 4.0 incorporating more BizTalk-like features (like correlation), BizTalk is getting less and less attention...especially with that price tag. actually, only points 1 & 4 are the only reasons to use BizTalk…and for one other reason: EXPANDABILITY

what BizTalk gives you over other custom architecture, is that it provides you an underlying fail-safe and scalable archictecture without having to write code. you got the transactions, built-in queueing, retries, suspended message monitoring and even throttling if the system is suddenly overwhelmed with messages. these are the things that most developers are taking for granted and don’t even realize that it’s very difficult to implement.

it’s funny, because we started with BizTalk 2004 (moved to 2006 shortly) and some other group were laughing at us and they decided to write their own. Guess what? years later, the BizTalk 2006 systems are still chugging and the home-growned EAI app got replaced after a few years of headaches.

now over to EXPANDABILITY, once you get to know how BizTalk works, 2 & 3 are hardly a reason. The tools are just enough, but not that compelling anymore when you find the shortcomings. For example, BizTalk maps are EASY, but very limited…Fortunately, you CAN reference an XSLT in your BizTalk map, which opens a whole lot of other options. Also, BizTalk has a number of Adapters and Pipeline components, but the beauty of this is Microsoft has a supported set of APIs and SDKs so you can easily roll your own Adapters and plug-ins! Microsoft could have easily decided to make this a black box, but they didn’t…and that was an awesome decision.

Now, having that said…BizTalk tech is on its last legs…since MS developed a better tech in the form of Workflows…and with “Dublin” coming, and WF 4.0 incorporating more BizTalk-like features (like correlation), BizTalk is getting less and less attention…especially with that price tag.

]]> Comment on Receiving scheduled MsgBoxViewer-reports via e-mail by MBVQueryBuilder and BizTalk Message Body Tracking Count queries « Connected Thoughts - Thiago Almeida http://www.richardhallgren.com/receiving-scheduled-msgboxviewer-reports-via-e-mail/#comment-366 MBVQueryBuilder and BizTalk Message Body Tracking Count queries « Connected Thoughts - Thiago Almeida Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:46:53 +0000 http://www.richardhallgren.com/receiving-scheduled-msgboxviewer-eports-via-e-mail/#comment-366 [...] can run the Message Box Viewer tool periodically, or even have it automatically send emails with the results, to ensure your BizTalk system is following all the best practices checked by the tool and your [...] [...] can run the Message Box Viewer tool periodically, or even have it automatically send emails with the results, to ensure your BizTalk system is following all the best practices checked by the tool and your [...]

]]> Comment on Better performance in batch imports to SQL Server using BizTalk by Rich Wallace http://www.richardhallgren.com/better-performance-in-batch-imports-to-sql-server-using-biztalk/#comment-365 Rich Wallace Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:34:19 +0000 http://www.richardhallgren.com/better-performance-in-batch-imports-to-sql-server-using-biztalk/#comment-365 Oops...I seem to have written a similiar post on my blog about this, prior to seeing yours. I'm with you, this saved me a TON of headaches when I started processing data like this. Oops…I seem to have written a similiar post on my blog about this, prior to seeing yours. I’m with you, this saved me a TON of headaches when I started processing data like this.

]]> Comment on Aggregated monitoring of BizTalk solutions using "BizMon" by Bart http://www.richardhallgren.com/aggregated-monitoring-of-biztalk-solutions-using-bizmon/#comment-362 Bart Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:48:32 +0000 http://www.richardhallgren.com/aggregated-monitoring-of-biztalk-solutions-using-bizmon/#comment-362 Great Post, looks like a very very good tool! Is there any more activity on it? Hopefully you'll get over the legal issues.... Great Post, looks like a very very good tool!
Is there any more activity on it?

Hopefully you’ll get over the legal issues….

]]> Comment on Removing namespace from outgoing messages by car jacks http://www.richardhallgren.com/removing-namespace-from-outgoing-messages/#comment-357 car jacks Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:48:12 +0000 http://www.richardhallgren.com/?p=260#comment-357 I must say, I can not agree with you in 100%, but it's just my opinion, which indeed could be very wrong. p.s. You have a very good template for your blog. Where have you got it from? I must say, I can not agree with you in 100%, but it’s just my opinion, which indeed could be very wrong.
p.s. You have a very good template for your blog. Where have you got it from?

]]> Comment on Aggregated monitoring of BizTalk solutions using "BizMon" by Arihant Jain http://www.richardhallgren.com/aggregated-monitoring-of-biztalk-solutions-using-bizmon/#comment-351 Arihant Jain Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:00:24 +0000 http://www.richardhallgren.com/aggregated-monitoring-of-biztalk-solutions-using-bizmon/#comment-351 That really cool, let me know when you are releasing its beta so that i can try to use it in my project and and evaluate it and suggest more inputs to you. That really cool, let me know when you are releasing its beta so that i can try to use it in my project and and evaluate it and suggest more inputs to you.

]]>