Hi, I'm just starting to learn BTS2004, and had some decent experience with
2002.  Having a problem getting 2004 to map anything.  All I get is:

"MSMQT failed to publish the message coming into the queue
DIRECT=OS:rd-v1304\Private$\CRMPublish, because no consumer was waiting for
it."

I have configured send/receive ports, and just using the built in xml
pipeline.  The doc instance validates against the spec, and the map is very
simple.  Looking in HAT, it seems to think the doc is the wrong type,
despite the fact it only validates against the correct schema.  The doc even
has the namespace in it, so no reason I can see that it shouldn't recognize
it.

Any ideas where to start?

Thanks!
Mike

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

More info:

If I remove the namespace from the document instance, I get:

"There was a failure executing the receive pipeline:
"Microsoft.BizTalk.DefaultPipelines.XMLReceive" Source: "XML disassembler"
Receive Location: "CRMPublish" Reason: The disassembler cannot retrieve the
document specification by using this type: "message". Either the schema is
not deployed correctly, or more than one schema is deployed for the same
message type."

and:

"The MSMQT subservice failed to process incoming message, error code "COM
object that has been separated from its underlying RCW can not be used." ."

There is only one document specification with a "message" element, so I
really don't understand what the problem is in identifiying this document
correctly!

Mike


"GaleForce" <nospan_mmcguinness@galeforcesolutions.com> wrote in message
news:elOg6U8VEHA.2908@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi, I'm just starting to learn BTS2004, and had some decent experience
with
> 2002.  Having a problem getting 2004 to map anything.  All I get is:
>
> "MSMQT failed to publish the message coming into the queue
> DIRECT=OS:rd-v1304\Private$\CRMPublish, because no consumer was waiting
for
> it."
>
> I have configured send/receive ports, and just using the built in xml
> pipeline.  The doc instance validates against the spec, and the map is
very
> simple.  Looking in HAT, it seems to think the doc is the wrong type,
> despite the fact it only validates against the correct schema.  The doc
even
> has the namespace in it, so no reason I can see that it shouldn't
recognize
> it.
>
> Any ideas where to start?
>
> Thanks!
> Mike
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

did you ever get a response to this issue?
i'm having exactly the same problem.

thanks
Ryan

quote:
Originally posted by GaleForce 
More info:

If I remove the namespace from the document instance, I get:

"There was a failure executing the receive pipeline:
"Microsoft.BizTalk.DefaultPipelines.XMLReceive" Source: "XML disassembler"
Receive Location: "CRMPublish" Reason: The disassembler cannot retrieve the
document specification by using this type: "message". Either the schema is
not deployed correctly, or more than one schema is deployed for the same
message type."

and:

"The MSMQT subservice failed to process incoming message, error code "COM
object that has been separated from its underlying RCW can not be used." ."

There is only one document specification with a "message" element, so I
really don't understand what the problem is in identifiying this document
correctly!

Mike


"GaleForce" <nospan_mmcguinness@galeforcesolutions.com> wrote in message
news:elOg6U8VEHA.2908@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi, I'm just starting to learn BTS2004, and had some decent experience
with
> 2002.  Having a problem getting 2004 to map anything.  All I get is:
>
> "MSMQT failed to publish the message coming into the queue
> DIRECT=OS:rd-v1304\Private$\CRMPublish, because no consumer was waiting
for
> it."
>
> I have configured send/receive ports, and just using the built in xml
> pipeline.  The doc instance validates against the spec, and the map is
very
> simple.  Looking in HAT, it seems to think the doc is the wrong type,
> despite the fact it only validates against the correct schema.  The doc
even
> has the namespace in it, so no reason I can see that it shouldn't
recognize
> it.
>
> Any ideas where to start?
>
> Thanks!
> Mike
>
> 

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]