BizTalk Server Orchestration - Re: Message Construction - Cacheing? or Versioning problem?

This is Interesting: Free IT Magazines  
Home > Archive > BizTalk Server Orchestration > June 2004 > Re: Message Construction - Cacheing? or Versioning problem?





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 Re: Message Construction - Cacheing? or Versioning problem?
Neal Walters

2004-06-20, 11:09 pm

I just made a separate thread/topic about increasing the major/minor version number.
Apparently this is getting me past this problem. So my guess is that we should always bump up the version number for each deploy? Something somewhere is not getting cleared out? Maybe the cache? I know in class, there are many times where we have to
start/stop the Host. Would changing cache refresh to 0 or 1 be advisable on the development system?

Neal


"Neal Walters" wrote:

> Today I tried the following and it ran (not really sure what is different from yesterday), but with just as strange results:
>
> testdoc = new System.Xml.XmlDocument();
> testdoc.LoadXml ( "<ns0:POConfirmation xmlns:ns0='http://EasyPOCorrelation.POConfirmation'><PONum>PONum_0</PONum><ConfirmationDate>1999-05-31T13:20:00.000-05:00</ConfirmationDate><ConfirmationAmount>10.4</ConfirmationAmount></ns0:POConfirmation>");
> System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(testdoc);
> mPOConfirm = testdoc;
> mPOConfirm.PONum = mEasyPO.PONum;
> mPOConfirm.PONum = "override";
> mPOConfirm.ConfirmationDate = System.DateTime.Now;
> mPOConfirm.ConfirmationAmount = mEasyPO.TotalAmount;
>
> The file sent written out looks like this:
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><ns0:POConfirmation xmlns:ns0="http://EasyPOCorrelation.POConfirmation">
> <PONum>PONum_0</PONum>
> <ConfirmationDate>1999-05-31T13:20:00.000-05:00</ConfirmationDate>
> <ConfirmationAmount>10.4</ConfirmationAmount>
> </ns0:POConfirmation>
>
> In other words, statements like mPOConfirm.PONum = "override"; seem to have been ignored. The PONum in the output file has a value of "PONum_0" instead of "override".
>
> What's up? Am I missing somethiing obvious here???
>
> Neal
>

Sponsored Links






Free braindumps | Software forum | Database administration forum

Copyright 2003 - 2008 webservertalk.com