|
Home > Archive > BizTalk Server General > September 2004 > new bie question on biztalk message publishing
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
new bie question on biztalk message publishing
|
|
|
| Hi all,
i had a question on message publishing n biztalk.
i have two orcehstrations PublisherOrchetration
this orchestration uses a direct send port .
and then i have another Orchetration ListnerOrchestration
this orchestration uses a direct receive port of same type....
question is
1)if my ListnerOrchestration is down(not even enlisted) when the
PublisherOrchetration publishes the message...is there any way it can
still receive the message when it comes back up later?
2)also in the above sample which i was building
.....ListenerOrcehstration seem to go in a infinite loop..all i am
doing in ListenerOrcehstration is ,receiving the message and writing
it to a file using a send port.
i think the send port will again put it BiztalkDB and that would again
publish the message resulting in creation of another instance of
ListenerOrcehstration...and so on...
but how do i stop this infinite loop. i can always some how change the
message type of the message being written out by using a dummy
transform...that i think will stop this infinite loop............
But i was wondering if there is a cleaner better way to acccomplish
this.
thanks
sidharth
| |
| Alan Smith 2004-09-29, 3:07 am |
| Hi Sidd
> 1)if my ListnerOrchestration is down(not even enlisted) when the
> PublisherOrchetration publishes the message...is there any way it can
> still receive the message when it comes back up later?
I don't think so, when using pub-sub, if there are no subscribers, the
message will not get delivered. One way to solve this would be to use a
storage outside the message box (e.g. a file location). (There's probably a
neater way to do this!!)
> 2)also in the above sample which i was building
> .....ListenerOrcehstration seem to go in a infinite loop..all i am
> doing in ListenerOrcehstration is ,receiving the message and writing
> it to a file using a send port.
> i think the send port will again put it BiztalkDB and that would again
> publish the message resulting in creation of another instance of
> ListenerOrcehstration...and so on...
> but how do i stop this infinite loop. i can always some how change the
> message type of the message being written out by using a dummy
> transform...that i think will stop this infinite loop............
I think everyone stumbles into that pitfal (I know I did). You need to set a
promoted property that the orchestrations can use to filter the messages
(this is done in the receive shape).
Darren Jefford has written a couple of good blog posts on solving this.
http://blogs.msdn.com/darrenj/archi.../18/115791.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/darrenj/archi.../19/115929.aspx
Hope this helps,
Alan
"sidd" wrote:
> Hi all,
> i had a question on message publishing n biztalk.
>
> i have two orcehstrations PublisherOrchetration
> this orchestration uses a direct send port .
>
> and then i have another Orchetration ListnerOrchestration
> this orchestration uses a direct receive port of same type....
>
> question is
> 1)if my ListnerOrchestration is down(not even enlisted) when the
> PublisherOrchetration publishes the message...is there any way it can
> still receive the message when it comes back up later?
>
> 2)also in the above sample which i was building
> .....ListenerOrcehstration seem to go in a infinite loop..all i am
> doing in ListenerOrcehstration is ,receiving the message and writing
> it to a file using a send port.
> i think the send port will again put it BiztalkDB and that would again
> publish the message resulting in creation of another instance of
> ListenerOrcehstration...and so on...
> but how do i stop this infinite loop. i can always some how change the
> message type of the message being written out by using a dummy
> transform...that i think will stop this infinite loop............
>
> But i was wondering if there is a cleaner better way to acccomplish
> this.
> thanks
> sidharth
>
| |
|
|
|
|
|