|
Home > Archive > BizTalk Server > November 2005 > Is it worth using Biztalk?
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 |
Is it worth using Biztalk?
|
|
|
| We have a requirement to integrate two applications, both running on
SQL Server 2000. The integration must add, update and delete records in
one system when the same happens in the other.
It has been suggested that Biztalk is the way to go, but I have not
seen any examples/tutorials on integrating two sql servers in this way.
Could any of you suggest, A: whether this is the way to go and B: where
would be a suitable place to look for examples/tutorials on how this
can be achieved.
Cheers.
| |
| Jeff Lynch 2005-10-31, 5:55 pm |
| You could probably use SQL DTS or simple triggers on your tables to
accomplish this in SQL 2000 easier than using BizTalk.
--
Jeff Lynch
"A BizTalk Enthusiast"
http://codebetter.com/blogs/jeff.lynch
"AJ" <aje@carlbro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1130756415.744026.236750@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> We have a requirement to integrate two applications, both running on
> SQL Server 2000. The integration must add, update and delete records in
> one system when the same happens in the other.
>
> It has been suggested that Biztalk is the way to go, but I have not
> seen any examples/tutorials on integrating two sql servers in this way.
>
> Could any of you suggest, A: whether this is the way to go and B: where
> would be a suitable place to look for examples/tutorials on how this
> can be achieved.
>
> Cheers.
>
| |
| Matt Barbour 2005-10-31, 8:49 pm |
| If that is all your doing .. attaching 2 SQL servers together,
Then I would recommend you simply set up a Linked Server and use T-SQL/SP's
Depending on your requirements you might even be able to use the Subscription / Publication engine that is built into SQL server for just this sort of thing.
On the other hand.. if you are trying to integrate them at the application level, then BTS may be a better option..
Are these custom apps? Or something off the shelf? Can you tell us a bit more?
- Matt.
-----Original Message-----
From: AJ
Posted At: Monday, October 31, 2005 5:00 AM
Posted To: microsoft.public.biztalk.server
Conversation: Is it worth using Biztalk?
Subject: Is it worth using Biztalk?
We have a requirement to integrate two applications, both running on
SQL Server 2000. The integration must add, update and delete records in
one system when the same happens in the other.
It has been suggested that Biztalk is the way to go, but I have not
seen any examples/tutorials on integrating two sql servers in this way.
Could any of you suggest, A: whether this is the way to go and B: where
would be a suitable place to look for examples/tutorials on how this
can be achieved.
Cheers.
| |
|
| >From what I can gather, initally it will be a fairly simple
integration, but this will grow over time, becoming more and more
complex and involving more than just these two applications.
The applications are both off the shelf packages with major
customisation.
I've done some further investigation and it does look like Biztalk is
the way to go, for me at least.
Thanks for your replies.
AJ
| |
|
|
AJ,
I agree, update grams with the SQL adapter will give you more
flexibility, provided it is cost effective for your organization. If
you already have the infrastructure (gotta love Virtual Server) and you
have the skill set "in-house" I say go for it. It will give you the
ability to act upon each update event and/or roll up the key indicators
into BAM and report on the business process driving the integration.
Based on your initial question I can see why our friends have suggested
using DTS or Triggers. If this were merely a "point solution" they
would be right. Again, depending on cost and your philosophy around
Event Driven Architectures perhaps BizTalk will give you more. It
sounds like you've made the decision, if you want some reputable
consulting resource references let me know. We have engaged several.
AZ
|
|
|
|
|