I'm sure this is a simple task but I can't figure it
out.  I would like to expose an orchestration as a
WebService that takes a string (not an xml node or doc)
as input to the operation.  In reality, the string is an
XML document but the vendor who will consume this
webservice needs to pass the doc as a string.  Once in
the Orchestration, I would then load it as an xml doc and
route appropriately.  I created a simple schema with
string type but still when you go to the browser test
page for the wsdl it shows that you can't use the browser
test page because of the complex data type.

Is this possible?  Should I write a front end web service
that does this preprocessing before calling an
orchestration?  Please advise...I know my ignorance is
getting the best of me here.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

I'd recommend the HTTP Receive Adapter instead of the SOAP Adapter.  That
way you can just model the schema without worrying about the WSDL.  If they
are decided on the schema before hand - you don't really need WSDL.

--
Jon Flanders [DevelopMentor]
http://staff.develop.com/jfland/
http://www.develop.com/courses/biztalk
"codeslush@yahoo.com" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:25b901c5148a$c7529e50$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> I'm sure this is a simple task but I can't figure it
> out.  I would like to expose an orchestration as a
> WebService that takes a string (not an xml node or doc)
> as input to the operation.  In reality, the string is an
> XML document but the vendor who will consume this
> webservice needs to pass the doc as a string.  Once in
> the Orchestration, I would then load it as an xml doc and
> route appropriately.  I created a simple schema with
> string type but still when you go to the browser test
> page for the wsdl it shows that you can't use the browser
> test page because of the complex data type.
>
> Is this possible?  Should I write a front end web service
> that does this preprocessing before calling an
> orchestration?  Please advise...I know my ignorance is
> getting the best of me here.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Jon,

Thank you for your reply.  I'll give it a shot and see
how it goes.  I was really hoping to use the SOAP adapter
but I guess it isn't feasible for my need.  Isn't it
pretty common for vendors to exchange messages as simple
data types?

Regardless, I appreciate the timeliness of your reply.  I
am very new to BizTalk and have built custom b2b
frameworks before and am excited about the opportunities
and features in BizTalk...just gotta get through this
initial learning curve!  No doubt it is better than
writing this stuff from scratch!!!

Michael


>-----Original Message-----
>I'd recommend the HTTP Receive Adapter instead of the
SOAP Adapter.  That
>way you can just model the schema without worrying about
the WSDL.  If they
>are decided on the schema before hand - you don't really
need WSDL.
>
>--
>Jon Flanders [DevelopMentor]
>http://staff.develop.com/jfland/
>http://www.develop.com/courses/biztalk
>"codeslush@yahoo.com"
<anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:25b901c5148a$c7529e50$a501280a@phx.gbl... 
an[vbcol=seagreen] 
and[vbcol=seagreen] 
browser[vbcol=seagreen] 
service[vbcol=seagreen] 
>
>
>.
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Usually in my experience vendor either pick working with SOAP, or to work
with POX (Plain-old XML) over HTTP. When you pick SOAP - you get complex
types - this is generally considered a good thing because the SOAP toolkits
(like WSDL.exe from .NET) can create types in the toolkit's language to make
development easier.  If your vendor just wants to post a string that happens
to contain XML and they have already defined the string - then POX over HTTP
is generally much simpler.

--
Jon Flanders [DevelopMentor]
http://staff.develop.com/jfland/
http://www.develop.com/courses/biztalk
"codeslush@yahoo.com" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:144701c5149b$2fa66e90$a601280a@phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Jon,
>
> Thank you for your reply.  I'll give it a shot and see
> how it goes.  I was really hoping to use the SOAP adapter
> but I guess it isn't feasible for my need.  Isn't it
> pretty common for vendors to exchange messages as simple
> data types?
>
> Regardless, I appreciate the timeliness of your reply.  I
> am very new to BizTalk and have built custom b2b
> frameworks before and am excited about the opportunities
> and features in BizTalk...just gotta get through this
> initial learning curve!  No doubt it is better than
> writing this stuff from scratch!!!
>
> Michael
>
> 
> SOAP Adapter.  That 
> the WSDL.  If they 
> need WSDL. 
> <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message 
> an 
> and 
> browser 
> service 

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Jon,

Just a follow-up, the HTTP adapter worked just fine.
Many thanks for the advice.

Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>Usually in my experience vendor either pick working with
SOAP, or to work
>with POX (Plain-old XML) over HTTP. When you pick SOAP -
you get complex
>types - this is generally considered a good thing
because the SOAP toolkits
>(like WSDL.exe from .NET) can create types in the
toolkit's language to make
>development easier.  If your vendor just wants to post a
string that happens
>to contain XML and they have already defined the string -
then POX over HTTP
>is generally much simpler.
>
>--
>Jon Flanders [DevelopMentor]
>http://staff.develop.com/jfland/
>http://www.develop.com/courses/biztalk
>"codeslush@yahoo.com"
<anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:144701c5149b$2fa66e90$a601280a@phx.gbl... 
adapter[vbcol=seagreen] 
simple[vbcol=seagreen] 
reply.  I[vbcol=seagreen] 
opportunities[vbcol=seagreen] 
about[vbcol=seagreen] 
really[vbcol=seagreen] 
doc)[vbcol=seagreen] 
in[vbcol=seagreen] 
is[vbcol=seagreen] 
>
>
>.
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]