|
Home > Archive > BizTalk Server General > May 2005 > BizTalk 2004 :: Business Rules Engine :: hotfix suggestion...
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 |
BizTalk 2004 :: Business Rules Engine :: hotfix suggestion...
|
|
|
| In the Business Rules Engine >> when you create a new vocabulary member
which is from an XSD schema >>
In the Vocabulary Definition Wizard:
I'd like to suggest a hotfix which allows the "document type" in the
"vocabulary definition wizard" to be the same as the "fully qualified name"
in the properties of the schema.
The document type is NEVER the correct type to work with an orchestration
and I often forget to add it, like many other do. Worse the namespaces are
often diffrent so I have to go and retreive it (open another tool,
copy/paste)... It is causing me, and people I am training frustration, as
they always must remember this seemingly silly step....
How many out there have tested with an XML instance and have it work fine
and not inside an orchestration? And its because of the "document type" and
the "fully qualified name" not matching?
If there is a reason for this, please explain, otherwise, a hotfix which
allows the document's "fully qualified name" to be used in the wizard
instead of the default would save many developers frustration.
Can anyone reading, with access to whatever it takes to get a hotfix
considered, please take it upon themselves this appeal for a needed fix.....
Thanks....
| |
| Jon Flanders[MVP] 2005-05-09, 2:47 am |
| The problem is - the Rules engine uses the XSD - not the .NET type - so
there is no way for the designer to know the .NET type.
This is part of the design of the BRE which allows it to be used as a stand
alone product without the biztalk project system.
--
Jon Flanders
http://www.masteringbiztalk.com/blogs/jon/
"BA" <biztalk.architect@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:427dde88$0$1348$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
> In the Business Rules Engine >> when you create a new vocabulary member
> which is from an XSD schema >>
> In the Vocabulary Definition Wizard:
>
>
> I'd like to suggest a hotfix which allows the "document type" in the
> "vocabulary definition wizard" to be the same as the "fully qualified
> name" in the properties of the schema.
>
> The document type is NEVER the correct type to work with an orchestration
> and I often forget to add it, like many other do. Worse the namespaces
> are often diffrent so I have to go and retreive it (open another tool,
> copy/paste)... It is causing me, and people I am training frustration,
> as they always must remember this seemingly silly step....
>
> How many out there have tested with an XML instance and have it work fine
> and not inside an orchestration? And its because of the "document type"
> and the "fully qualified name" not matching?
>
> If there is a reason for this, please explain, otherwise, a hotfix which
> allows the document's "fully qualified name" to be used in the wizard
> instead of the default would save many developers frustration.
>
> Can anyone reading, with access to whatever it takes to get a hotfix
> considered, please take it upon themselves this appeal for a needed
> fix.....
>
> Thanks....
>
>
>
| |
|
| John,
I guess I can see your point. Making it stand alone removes any
integration.
Its not able to "reference" anything.
BA
"Jon Flanders[MVP]" <jon.flanders@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OiFthxDVFHA.3584@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> The problem is - the Rules engine uses the XSD - not the .NET type - so
> there is no way for the designer to know the .NET type.
>
> This is part of the design of the BRE which allows it to be used as a
> stand alone product without the biztalk project system.
>
> --
> Jon Flanders
> http://www.masteringbiztalk.com/blogs/jon/
>
> "BA" <biztalk.architect@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:427dde88$0$1348$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
>
>
| |
| Jon Flanders[MVP] 2005-05-09, 7:47 am |
| BA - I totally agree with you though - I've thought maybe the could have a
setting "going to use this from an orchestration" - which might prompt you
in some way. Even today I might write a rule and forget the correct doctype
value.
--
Jon Flanders
http://www.masteringbiztalk.com/blogs/jon/
"BA" <biztalk.architect@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:427f3f11$0$1369$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
> John,
>
> I guess I can see your point. Making it stand alone removes any
> integration.
>
> Its not able to "reference" anything.
>
> BA
>
>
>
> "Jon Flanders[MVP]" <jon.flanders@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OiFthxDVFHA.3584@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
>
| |
|
|
indeed... I have probably built 100 vocab entries by now and it happend to
me again this morning :-)
"Jon Flanders[MVP]" <jon.flanders@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OGEnqHJVFHA.2172@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> BA - I totally agree with you though - I've thought maybe the could have a
> setting "going to use this from an orchestration" - which might prompt
> you in some way. Even today I might write a rule and forget the correct
> doctype value.
>
> --
> Jon Flanders
> http://www.masteringbiztalk.com/blogs/jon/
>
> "BA" <biztalk.architect@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:427f3f11$0$1369$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
>
>
|
|
|
|
|