12-05-05 10:55 PM
For BizTalk 2004 implementations, I use the BTSInstaller to uninstall and
reinstall projects on the production machine. For more information see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...aller_bvkn.asp.
The downside to the installation package is that you either need to create
many different installations, or uninstall all items associated with a
project and reinstall. For example, I had one project that used 8
orchestrations, and I had to create 8 installations so that the client could
make changes to a single orchestration without affecting the other processes
.
But, on the plus side, the client loved the simplicity of the installation
packages.
"BizTalk Benjamin" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just checking if anyone has these issues and could offer some help. We hav
e
> a set of batch files (copied and customised from the MS whitepaper -
> Developing Integration Solutions with BTS). They are used to stop ports an
d
> orchs, undeploy assemblies etc. Sometimes however, we find that the orch's
> refuse to stop and they dont get undeployed correctly. At these times we h
ave
> to use the VS.NET BizTalk explorer and forcibly undeploy the
> assemblies/orchs/ports etc. This works fine in TEST and UAT.
>
> But in PRODUCTION, we wont have VS.NET so we dont have the luxury of using
> the BTS Explorer add-in and the standard BizTalk Admin console is of no us
e
> to change port bindings, undeploy etc. I am wondering about using the GDN
> tool "BTS Management App". Is that a good idea?
>
> So, for the folks who have BizTalk 04 in production,
> (1) what are you doing to put new versions of assemblies? do you stop the
> hosts, undeploy the lot and redeploy or do you just put new assemblies in
the
> GAC and does BizTalk pick it up automatically?
> (2) if you undeploy, how do you do it? what tools do you use?
> (3) What about version numbers and binding files? How do you put new ones
> into the GAC while a current version is running?
>
> Hope someone can help. We are going live soon and these deployment problem
s
> are making us rather anxious.
>
> Thanks
> benjy
[ Post a follow-up to this message ]
|