BizTalk Server Orchestration - Singleton pattern?

Author

Singleton pattern?

2004-05-17, 1:38 pm

Is there an elegant way to implement a singleton
orchestration?

Narasimhan Padmanabhan

2004-05-19, 5:50 pm

2004-05-20, 5:43 pm

Documents to be processed will arrive in groups. How the
individual documents are processed depends on
characteristics of the entire group. For example, if the
number of documents in the group containing a certain
piece of information reaches a specific threshold, then
set some code in all the documents = A, else set the code
= B.

>-----Original Message-----
>What is the scenario you are attempting?

JMZ2004

2005-03-07, 12:37 pm

Hello,

I also am in need of implementing a singleton oechesrartion. The scenario is this:

Messages to process come in groups, sometimes very large groups (hundreds or thousands at a time). Each instance of the main orchestration obviously gets its own copy of the business logic to execute on the message. However, each instance also needs static data (datasets) from the database server. We want to eliminate all the redundant transfer of the datasets across the network and serve up the data locally from a singleton via public properties.

So, what we want is a singleton orchestration to be the central clearinghouse for the datasets.

Does this sound feasible?

Thanks.

quote:
Originally posted by Narasimhan Padmanabhan
What is the scenario you are attempting?
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

EBusiness Server Team
--------------------
| >>Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
| >>From: <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com>
| >>Sender: <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com>
| >>Subject: Singleton pattern?
| >>Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:06:02 -0700
| >>Lines: 3
| >>Message-ID: <e2c501c43c31$3bc692b0$a501280a@phx.gbl>
| >>MIME-Version: 1.0
| >>Content-Type: text/plain;
| >> charset="iso-8859-1"
| >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| >>X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
| >>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
| >>Thread-Index: AcQ8MTvGywCyjxLcRiu8kEHB55BVug==
| >>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.biztalk.orchestration
| >>Path: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl
| >>Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.biztalk.orchestration:6131
| >>NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftngxa13.phx.gbl 10.40.1.165
| >>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.biztalk.orchestration
| >>
| >>Is there an elegant way to implement a singleton
| >>orchestration?
| >>
| >>

Alan Smith

2005-03-08, 2:47 am

Hi,

If you'r processing thousands of messages, then a singleton orchestration
may not be the way to go. If you allow only one orchestration instance to be
created, it will take a lot longer to process the messages, and you will not
be able to load balance with multple servers.

One option may be to create a .net class that caches the data, (maybe a
singleton class). You mentioned that the data was static, so it should be
possible to create a class with a static member variable to store the data,
and a static method to access it. You can then call this method from a
standard orchestration.

This should give you a solution that does not hammer the database server,
and still gives you good performace processing lots of messages.

Regards,

Alan

"JMZ2004" wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> I also am in need of implementing a singleton oechesrartion. The
> scenario is this:
>
> Messages to process come in groups, sometimes very large groups
> (hundreds or thousands at a time). Each instance of the main
> orchestration obviously gets its own copy of the business logic to
> execute on the message. However, each instance also needs static data
> (datasets) from the database server. We want to eliminate all the
> redundant transfer of the datasets across the network and serve up the
> data locally from a singleton via public properties.
>
> So, what we want is a singleton orchestration to be the central
> clearinghouse for the datasets.
>
> Does this sound feasible?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> Narasimhan Padmanabhan wrote:
>
>
>
> --
> JMZ2004
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via http://www.webservertalk.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> View this thread: http://www.webservertalk.com/message228727.html
>
>