BizTalk Server General - Why no adapters for Exchange and Active Directory?

Author

Why no adapters for Exchange and Active Directory?

Michael Shewmaker

2005-08-24, 6:04 pm

I am perplexed by what appear to me to be glaring omissions from the BizTalk
product.

Can anyone explain why there aren't native BizTalk adapters for Exchange or
Active Directory? Or WebDAV and LDAP?

The POP3/SMTP support is good but doesn't come close to handling all the
things that one might want to do with Exchange. Yes, we can write the
ADSI/LDAP or CDO/WebDAV code ourselves, but we'd hoped to avoid both the time
commitment and the maintenance headache.

The lack of adapters for these two flagship products sends a very odd
message about the BizTalk product. I feel like I've been told "You’re
already a Microsoft shop; we don't care about your needs."

What part of the equation am I missing?

Tomas Restrepo \(MVP\)

2005-08-24, 8:51 pm

Michael,

>I am perplexed by what appear to me to be glaring omissions from the
>BizTalk
> product.
>
> Can anyone explain why there aren't native BizTalk adapters for Exchange
> or
> Active Directory? Or WebDAV and LDAP?
>
> The POP3/SMTP support is good but doesn't come close to handling all the
> things that one might want to do with Exchange. Yes, we can write the
> ADSI/LDAP or CDO/WebDAV code ourselves, but we'd hoped to avoid both the
> time
> commitment and the maintenance headache.
>
> The lack of adapters for these two flagship products sends a very odd
> message about the BizTalk product. I feel like I've been told "You're
> already a Microsoft shop; we don't care about your needs."
>
> What part of the equation am I missing?

I don't think that's the reason for this kind of thing. As you have probably
guessed, the number of base adapters included in OOB with BizTalk has always
been fairly small (though it will grow in 2006 a bit). For those base
adapters, as well as most of the other adapters available from microsoft, I
see a clear trend to support basic internet protocols (HTTP, FTP and the
like), and then going up to focus more clearly on adapters for business
applications (great plains, sap, axapta, jd edwards and the like).

My guess is that since for Biztalk Microsoft has limited development
resources (at least I imagine), they have decided to focus on building the
core platform, and basica adapters, and then letting the community and
partners extend the adapters, but that's only my opinion, of course

Part
of the reasons I say this is that there was an obvious push (from my POV) in
BTS2004 to make it much easier to build custom adapters for biztalk, so that
it is not only something done by third parties, but rather, up to a point,
something not very extraordinary for an EAI project.

That said, it obviously does not resolve your immediate need for them...

--
Tomas Restrepo
tomasr@mvps.org
http://www.winterdom.com/

Michael Shewmaker

2005-08-25, 6:02 pm

Tomas,

Thanks for the reply. My organization is forced to choose an integration
platform between BizTalk and another product that already has built in hooks
to LDAP and WebDAV.

The developer in me really, really, likes BizTalk's messaging architecture.
The project manager in me hates the additional development time and the
schedule risks inherent in writing new adapter code. As a result I'm very
uncomfortable recommending BizTalk over a system that doesn't have these
risks.

I guess what annoys me most is the announcement that BizTalk 2006 will
include Microsoft supported adapters for third party apps (Amdocs, JD
Edwards, Oracle Corp., PeopleSoft, Siebel Systems Inc. and TIBCO Software
Inc.) but there is no indication of doing anything for LDAP or WebDAV.

I would have thought that LDAP at least would have risen to the level of a
"basic protocol" that must be supported. It's not just Active Directory.
We've got a phone switch and other applications using LDAP.

Annoyance is a poor reason for making a purchasing decision, but it
certainly plays into one's thinking.

Michael

Tomas Restrepo \(MVP\)

2005-08-25, 6:02 pm

Michael,

> Thanks for the reply. My organization is forced to choose an integration
> platform between BizTalk and another product that already has built in
> hooks
> to LDAP and WebDAV.
>
> The developer in me really, really, likes BizTalk's messaging
> architecture.
> The project manager in me hates the additional development time and the
> schedule risks inherent in writing new adapter code. As a result I'm very
> uncomfortable recommending BizTalk over a system that doesn't have these
> risks.
>
> I guess what annoys me most is the announcement that BizTalk 2006 will
> include Microsoft supported adapters for third party apps (Amdocs, JD
> Edwards, Oracle Corp., PeopleSoft, Siebel Systems Inc. and TIBCO Software
> Inc.) but there is no indication of doing anything for LDAP or WebDAV.
>
> I would have thought that LDAP at least would have risen to the level of a
> "basic protocol" that must be supported. It's not just Active Directory.
> We've got a phone switch and other applications using LDAP.
>
> Annoyance is a poor reason for making a purchasing decision, but it
> certainly plays into one's thinking.

I totally agree with you, and fully understand you. I, too, agree there
should be more support for exchange and LDAP in biztalk (heck, I've always
said biztalk comes with too few adapters out of the box, particularly
compared to some competitors products).

I did a search for sample adapters for these, but I must admit I didn't find
anything worthwhile, which might suggest there is not (has not been) enough
interest in the community to develop one, either. So, perhaps it is that MS
doesn't know that people like you are deeply interested in these adapters.
I'm definitely gonna try to forward this one to MS...

thanks again,

--
Tomas Restrepo
tomasr@mvps.org
http://www.winterdom.com/

s.ocallaghan

2005-08-25, 8:52 pm

I too am quite surprised about the lack of support for Exchange in
BizTalk. I've came up with an (untested), prophetic solution based
on MSMQ, MSMQ Exchange Connector the BizTalk MSMQ Adapter and
BizTalk.

I, or the evangelist in me, drafted some thoughts on my blog about
it. Any thoughts on this would be most welcome
http://exaura.org/shaun/archive/2005/08/01/495.aspx

Thanks,

Shaun

> Tomas Restrepo (MVP)wrote:
Michael,
>
> Thanks for the reply. My organization is forced to choose an
integration
> platform between BizTalk and another product that already has built
in
> hooks
> to LDAP and WebDAV.
>
> The developer in me really, really, likes BizTalk's messaging
> architecture.
> The project manager in me hates the additional development time and
the
> schedule risks inherent in writing new adapter code. As a result
I'm very
> uncomfortable recommending BizTalk over a system that doesn't have
these
> risks.
>
> I guess what annoys me most is the announcement that BizTalk 2006
will
> include Microsoft supported adapters for third party apps (Amdocs,
JD
> Edwards, Oracle Corp., PeopleSoft, Siebel Systems Inc. and TIBCO
Software
> Inc.) but there is no indication of doing anything for LDAP or
WebDAV.
>
> I would have thought that LDAP at least would have risen to the
level of a
> "basic protocol" that must be supported. It's not just Active
Directory.
> We've got a phone switch and other applications using LDAP.
>
> Annoyance is a poor reason for making a purchasing decision, but it
> certainly plays into one's thinking.
>
I totally agree with you, and fully understand you. I, too, agree
there
should be more support for exchange and LDAP in biztalk (heck, I've
always
said biztalk comes with too few adapters out of the box, particularly

compared to some competitors products).

I did a search for sample adapters for these, but I must admit I
didn't find
anything worthwhile, which might suggest there is not (has not been)
enough
interest in the community to develop one, either. So, perhaps it is
that MS
doesn't know that people like you are deeply interested in these
adapters.
I'm definitely gonna try to forward this one to MS...

thanks again,

--
Tomas Restrepo
tomasr@mvps.org
http://www.winterdom.com/[/quote:f7b40feecc]