none
SQL send port artifacts RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi,
     
    My complains are about the SQL port.
     
    Now I have to create  one multi-part service schema, two multi-part message types and one port type to support a call for one stored procedures.
    The variant with list of different parameters is quite rare.
    In routine work for store data to SQL I use the stored procedures with one parameter like @Xml_Text where the XML data converted to XML with code:
     
    var_XmlDocument = msg_MyMsg;
    msg_SPName_Request.parameters.SPName.Xml_Text = var_XmlDocument.OuterXml;
     
    That's OK.
     
    Say in my BizTalk application I have 5 points with storing data to SQL. All stored procedures have the same parameters (only one @Xml_Text). I have to create 5 multi-part schemas, 10 multi-part message types and 5 port types. All of them are precisely the same and differentiated only in the name of the stored procedure.
     
    Seems more conveniently to move this name to the element <root>/<StoredProcedureName> of the service schema, for example. That's all. We don't need the multi-part message types and  port type (if we want we can still use them).
    All we need now is two service schemas (Request and Response) for ALL stored procedures. We can create/copy them manually from the SDK samples or they can be produced by Wizard Smile
     
    You can say a new way is less reliable then now.
    Oh no! Now there are much more manual work! After wizard we have to manually move new multi-part message types and new port type to work orchestration, delete new service orchestration, rename the new service schema.
     
    You can say a new way is less flexible then now.
    Now the name of the stored procedure is mounted as name of the node, and as additional node
    <xs:appinfo>
      <msbtssqlTongue TiedqlScript value="exec [SPName] @Xml_Text=" "" xmlns:msbtssql="http://schemas.microsoft.com/BizTalk/2003" />
    </xs:appinfo>
    This name is a part of the schema! Why do not make it a value of the node? For flexibility.

    In new variant it would be the value of the node, not the name of the node.
    Maybe the current variant is based on some insider requirements, I' not sure the new variant is what would work. There should be other implementations.
     
    Is it possible to change the current SQL port?
    Thursday, May 3, 2007 5:35 PM

All replies