none
What I miss in BizTalk ... (2nd part)

    General discussion

  • 1st part is here. I've split it to make simpler to read.

    Place a feature in this topic you want to be in the BizTalk Server. 
    Please, try your best to be as clear as possible. Use examples to show details.
    Please, put only one feature in one post. 

    Template is:

    • What I miss in BizTalk: <...>
    • What can be done to fix it: <...>
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? <1(easy)..10(hard)> <Comments...>

    Readers of this topic, please, Vote As Helpful for the posts you also needed.

    ==================================================

    Summary of the 1st part:

    >60 missed features


    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: Internals: Namespaces





    Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:58 PM
    Moderator

All replies

    • What I miss in BizTalk: Actually, I don't miss it but I would like to remove the HostTrusted  and Trusted attributes from binding file. 
      For the Send and Receive ports it looks like:
                  
           <SendHandler Name="SendHost" HostTrusted="false">
    and for the Orchestrations it is
             <Host Name="OrchHost" ... Trusted="false" />
     when we export a binding we've got such attributes. The HostTrusted/Trusted should not be here! It is unnecessary because HostTrusted/Trusted is a parameter of the Host. Defining Host like "SendHost" we automatically choose the correspondent trust option for it.
    It seems not a big deal, but for automated deployment (for example with BTDF), we must take care of this attribute. It is error-prone and exposes unnecessery parameter. 

    • What can be done to fix it: remove HostTrusted/Trusted attributes from the binding
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 2 it looks easy but can broke backward compatibility. 

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: Internals: Namespaces



    Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:07 PM
    Moderator
  • Would it be possible to start this second part with a summary of the first to prevent duplicates?

    Jean-Paul Smit | Didago IT Consultancy
    Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn
    MCTS BizTalk 2006/2010 + Certified SOA Architect

    Please indicate "Mark as Answer" if this post has answered the question.

    Friday, January 18, 2013 7:34 AM
  • What I miss in BizTalk: Functionality to change and edit tracking settings for artifacts in Visual Studio.

    • What can be done to fix it: Well, adding the functionality
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 4 will be some work because more Things have to change..

    Friday, January 18, 2013 7:54 AM
    Owner
  • sorry for the post above messing up the layout, can anyone delete it, and I'll add it again.

    What I miss in BizTalk: Move tracking settings for artifacts into the binding file

    What can be done to fix it: Simply move the settings to the binding file so it can be changed and verified easier.

    Do I think it an easy fix?: I would say 3-4 not too hard, nor extremly easy.


    Friday, January 18, 2013 7:56 AM
    Owner
  • What I miss in BizTalk: Out of the box facility to trigger send port or orchestration at specific interval.

    What can be done to fix it: The adapter similar to schedule task adapter can be provided as part of product.

    Do I think it an easy fix?:  Not too hard.


    Please mark the post answered your question as answer, and mark other helpful posts as helpful, it'll help other users who are visiting your thread for the similar problem, Regards -Rohit Sharma (http://rohitt-sharma.blogspot.com/)

    Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:12 AM
    Moderator
  • What I miss in BizTalk: Possibility to copy the filters from one send port to another, so in fact copy the subscription for that port
    • What can be done to fix it: Just make the send port dialog a bit smarter
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 2

      Jean-Paul Smit | Didago IT Consultancy
      Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn
      MCTS BizTalk 2006/2010 + Certified SOA Architect

      Please indicate "Mark as Answer" if this post has answered the question.

    Friday, January 25, 2013 8:22 PM
  • What I miss in BizTalk: The application boundaries for the ports for the schemas.
    Now I cannot use the same schema in the receive port if it is deployed in several applications (please, see this article "BizTalk: Internals: Schema Uniqueness Rule").
    I cannot use the ports with the same names in different applications. 
    The application namespaces are not completely working for the schemas and ports, the application namespaces do not isolate these artifacts..
    It is really confusing. For schemas it creates the nightmare for the schema deployment (we have to unnecessarily share the schemas).

    I would like to deploy the same schema in several applications without disturb another applications.

    What can be done to fix it: Fix it

    Do I think it an easy fix?:  6-8 SeemsIt would change the SQL artifacts.


    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: Internals: Namespaces



    Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:25 PM
    Moderator
  • What I miss in BizTalk: The orchestration code repeats the expressions in two places: in the design XML definition and in the xLANG code.
    For example:
    this is XLANG code:

    if (msg_SAP.Type == "E")

    this is the XML definition:

    <om:Property Name="Expression" Value="(msg_SAP.Type == &quot;E&quot; )&#xD;&#xA;" />

    If we try to use XML editor to replace some repetitive code, it messed up. That's why the refactoring of orchestrations is a nightmare.

    It doesn't look right to repeat the same expressions in two places. It looks like a nasty bug.

    What can be done to fix it: Fix the orchestration editor.

    Do I think it an easy fix?:  6-8 It will change the orchestration editor.


    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: Internals: Namespaces


    Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:39 PM
    Moderator
  • What I miss in BizTalk: I miss description of these magic vt -s in the binding files. It is used frequently in many places, like vt="11", vt="1", etc. and there is only an old definition of it, which is not clear.

    What can be done to fix it: Add the definition into Help. Or just add support of some simple expression parser to use expressions not those magic attributes.

    Do I think it an easy fix?:  2 


    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: Internals: Namespaces


    Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:59 PM
    Moderator
  • What I miss in BizTalk: I miss the unencoded Xml in the binding files. Several parameters are placing the Xml into the text node and eventually encode Xml. For example:

         <TransportTypeData>&lt;CustomProps&gt;&lt;BindingConfiguration vt="8"&gt;&amp;lt;binding name=...

    It takes an effort to work with this encoded Xml if we need an automated deployment and want to edit the binding files directly.

    It would be nice if we use some other format for such parameters without encoding.

    What can be done to fix it: Change the binding file parser or/and a format such nodes.

    Do I think it an easy fix?:  5-6


    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: Internals: Namespaces


    Tuesday, January 29, 2013 5:10 PM
    Moderator
    • What I miss in BizTalk: A helper .NET class to construct the XLANGMessage message (and XLANGPart also). 
      For example, It happens we create the code which use the XLANGMessage and XLANGPart objects in the method signatures. When we tried to create the tests for those methods, we have to construct the test XLANGMessage or XLANGPart objects, but the correspondent classes are abstract... 
      In XLANG code we can use the XmlDocument to create these objects but it is not possible in NET code.
    • What can be done to fix it: Create one more NET class for it and bundle it with BizTalk (or place it in Codeplex, or...)
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 2

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: Internals: Namespaces

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013 5:32 PM
    Moderator
  • What I miss in BizTalk: easy way of Remote Administrator of Biztalk Admin Conole without having RDP access to Production server
    • What can be done to fix it: BizTalk 360 can be used , but its better if Biztalk allow to access Admin console remotely
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 2
    Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:56 AM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: Business Rule Composer integration in Visual Studio.
    • What can be done to fix it: Adding the functionality to Visual Studio.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 8
    Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:41 PM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: BTSTask to import/export Business Rule Policies and Vocabularies (xml to DB, DB to xml).
    • What can be done to fix it: Adding the functionality to BTSTask.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 2

    • Edited by Prabath2000 Friday, February 01, 2013 7:59 PM
    Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:45 PM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: A way to easy construct a new message in orchestrations.
    • What can be done to fix it: BizTalk also has this functionality as a Generate Instancecommand for a schema.
      It should be just exposed in some form, for example,
      msg_MyMessage = Microsoft.XLANG.BaseTypes.MessageManager.CreateMessage(schema, hasToGenerateTestValue, isMessageMinimal)
      where hasToGenerateTestValues defines do I need those 
      <SalesOrderNumber>SalesOrderNumber_0</SalesOrderNumber> test values, or I need only empty values;
      isMessageMinimal defines do I need 3 instances of nodes which maxOccurs=*, or I need only the minOccurs for the nodes.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 2-3 It is easy. Just expose the existed functionality with small additions.

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: Internals: Namespaces

    Wednesday, February 06, 2013 7:04 PM
    Moderator
    • What I miss in BizTalk: To use one schema picker, the best one.
      Now we have two different schema pickers:
      One is in the Mapper. It takes 5 clicks to open the Select Root Node windows (which is not sorted!!!!) Then 2 more to chose the schema root. There is absolutely useless Schema node in the schema tree, which I still have to choose. The windows are not re-sizable so we have to frequently scroll windows left-right to discover a name (additional unneccessery task).


      The second schema picker is in Orchestration editor. It takes 4 clicks to choose a schema root. The schema visibility is much better then in the first one, the roots are sorted. One con is the Fully Qualified Name column is useless, it just clogs the space and does not provide an additional information. The second con, the window doesn't save the previous size, so each time we have to change the window/column size.
    • What can be done to fix it: Replace the Schema picker in Mapper to the Schema Picker from Orch Editor.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 2-3 everything is here.

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: Internals: Namespaces


    Wednesday, February 06, 2013 7:23 PM
    Moderator
    • What I miss in BizTalk: The Schema Picker does not remember the previous chosen schema. Quite frequently we have to choose a request then a response schema (for example, in a port type they are always placed nearby). If the picker saves the previous position, we would save a lot of time. 
      When we have to refactor a project, for example, rename the namespace, we have to re select the schemas, and if picker saves the previous schema position, we could do refactoring much-much faster. For example is we change a schema type name, we have to change schema in the port types, in messages, etc. 
    • What can be done to fix it: Adding the functionality to the Schema Picker.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 2-3 It should be easy.

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: Internals: Namespaces


    Wednesday, February 06, 2013 7:30 PM
    Moderator
  • What I miss in BizTalk:

    Provide an "Update Consumed WCF Service references" facility - similar to updating WCF Service References in Visual Studio

    The current process to update existing artifacts is tedious and error prone - (e.g. see also here)

    What can be done to fix it

    VS Consume Wizard should:

    => Prevent / delete / merge duplicated schemas (e.g. when consuming 2 or more services exposing the same MessageContract schema, BizTalk <= 2010 creates another copy of the schema which sometimes is only picked up at run time)
    => Re apply any distinguished and promoted properties on consumed WCF schemas.
    => Retain any Type Modifier scope settings (notably public) already set on the imported port types

    Do I think it is an easy fix?
    Not sure. 5?



    • Edited by nonnb Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:20 AM
    Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:18 AM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: Full proxy support for the FTP adapter. Now it supports proxies more or less, but they have to be SOCKS4 or SOCKS5 (Type property in the Firewall property group). I want a proxy property group where I can provide username/password proxy server/port for my tunnel proxy.
    • What can be done to fix it: Add it :-)
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 3

    Pieter Vandenheede - Codit

    Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:00 PM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: 

    If the source OR destination schemas in a map is changed, VS issues a general warning as per below. It would be nice if the warning specified whether it is one of the SOURCE or the DESTINATION schemas which have changed (and not source/destination)

    Error is:

    "An error occurred loading the source schema. Cannot load source/destination schema: C:\SomePath\SomeFolder\MyNameSpace.xsd.  Either the file/type does not exist, or if a project dependency exists, the dependent project is not built.. Do you want to choose another schema?"

    • What can be done to fix it: Replace source/destination with one of source or destination
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 1 Easy

    • Edited by nonnb Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:38 PM Typo, formatting
    Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:52 AM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: A test client integrated in the BizTalk.
      As a good example is the
      test case in SoapUi. The BizTalk test client has an access to the management database so it can generate the test cases not only for the SOAP web-services but for any receive ports. It can generate the test messages for any transport from the BizTalk adapter set. We accustomed to the current situation when we don't have any test facilities for the port-to-port testing, for the BizTalk application testing. But this situation is not perfect.
    • What can be done to fix it: It would be completely new feature.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 4-6 Having the SoapUi as an example it is not hard to create it.

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: the Naming Conventions in Examples

    Monday, March 04, 2013 2:58 AM
    Moderator
    • What I miss in BizTalk: The Orchestration that can be parameterized by schemas and maps. The Generic Orchestration 
      For example: I've got several orchestrations which have the same processing logic. The only difference is they process the different message types. Now I have to recreate all of them, copy-past. The code reuse is ugly. The supportability is ugly. Using ESB Toolkit looks ugly the same.
      I'd rater created the generic orchestration with <MessageTypeA>, <MessageTypeB>... Then define the specific message types on the Admin Console. Or define them in the Orchestration Editor. Both ways are working. 
      This feature would open so many interesting development patterns.
    • What can be done to fix it: Modification of the orchestration engine.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 8-10 

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: the Naming Conventions in Examples


    Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:59 PM
    Moderator
    • What I miss in BizTalk: Possibility to use the same Receive Location names in different Receive Ports.
      A Receive Location is part (a property) of a Receive Port, right? Not exactly. We cannot create a receive location with the same name as the existed receive location in the same BizTalk Group. It is like we cannot create a method in class A with the same name in class B. 
      It is really annoying because now we have to create those ugly long-long-long Receive Location names.
    • What can be done to fix it: Change the visibility of the Receive locations from the BizTalk Group wide to the Receive Port wide.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 3-5

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: the Naming Conventions in Examples

    Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:06 AM
    Moderator

  • If this answers your question please mark it accordingly

Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:55 PM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: The Retry interval in seconds on the Send Port. Now it is only in minutes. Yes it would be too easy to over-load the systems with requests, but sometimes it is exactly what is needed. 
    • What can be done to fix it: Add it.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 3-8 It could hit a MessageBox engine, maybe it is linked with the job intervals...

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: the Naming Conventions in Examples


    Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:42 PM
    Moderator
    • What I miss in BizTalk: The Retry interval with increasing delay on the Send Port. Now it can retry in a constant interval: 1 min, 1 min, 1 min.... In many cases we need: 1 min, 2 min, 3 min, 4 min. It is well-known method to prevent the network/system overload. We implemented it in Orch many times, We saw this implementation in existed code. One example: the big batch is processing once a day. Each message in the batch initiates a  call to the external system, and this system is overloaded in seconds. So all send port instances start to retry... now the BizTalk is overloaded. It started from 1K messages in a batch, now the MessageBox queue holds 5K requests (if the Retry count = 5) to the external system in queue. But I need this Retry because usually batches are small and Retry is tuned up to the small batch size.
    • What can be done to fix it: Add it.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 3-6

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: the Naming Conventions in Examples


    Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:55 PM
    Moderator
    • What I miss in BizTalk: Dynamic Receive Locations
    • What can be done to fix it: Tricky, but can be added.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 5-6

    • Edited by Ankur_BizTalk Friday, March 22, 2013 11:03 AM More details
    Friday, March 22, 2013 6:38 AM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: Change/update Subscription Filters for Orchestrations and Send Ports from the Admin Console.
    • What can be done to fix it: Difficult.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 7-8

    Friday, March 22, 2013 11:04 AM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: Scheduling Receive Location with complex schedules
    • What can be done to fix it: Add It.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 7-8
    Friday, March 22, 2013 11:06 AM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: The ability to specify a TPM Agreement by Receive Port (it's the only option not supported).
    • What can be done to fix it: The UI can be exactly the same as the Send Ports option.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 1

    Why?  Many clearinghouse organizations aggregate and transmit messages from dozens or hundreds of otherwise unknown partners (but we trust the clearinghouse).  In these scenarios, you can't create Agreements because the senders are not known.

    The problem was easy to work around, but we have to advise the customers that the EDI tracking will not work as expected.  Fallback settings cannot be used since parameters may be different for each aggregator.

    Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:07 PM
    Moderator

  • What I miss in BizTalk: I don't know if someone already posted this, but I wish there was a way for me to enter the messagetype in the admin console and retrieve a list of services (orchestrations, ports) that subscribe to that messagetype.

    What can be done to fix it: Add a new querytype in the admin console.

    Do I think it an easy fix?:  Not hard.

    • Edited by BizTalkAdmin Tuesday, April 02, 2013 4:47 PM format
    Tuesday, April 02, 2013 4:45 PM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: Resizeable Expression Shape Editor window in VS.
    • What can be done to fix it: UI
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 1

    Wednesday, April 03, 2013 6:30 PM
  • Hey BTAtWork,

    If you are talking about the BizTalk expression editor we use in the orchestration, then resizing works just fine. I use this almost daily and I am using visual studio 2010.

    Wednesday, April 03, 2013 6:50 PM
  • Hi All

    This is a very cool thread, couple of additional ideas

    • What I miss in BizTalk:

    Being able to mark a BizTalk application as "shared" or "isolated".  This would mean that I could easily build an application that would automatically sandbox any artefacts of messaging/orchestration within just that applications context.  Basically shared applications could pick up messages from one another exactly like now but isolated applications would not need to worry about a subscription in another application picking up a message.

    I think the benefits of this would include:

    1. For some BizTalk applications it would reduce the risk of having to regression test other BizTalk applications on the same group

    2. For complex applications it would allow you to treat them conceptually similar to the BizTalk services on azure idea where everything is sandboxed and you can pass messages between services but its much more explicit by a publish outside of your application boundary.  I think people would then tend to build BizTalk applications slightly differently 

    3. You could have the same schema multiple times in different applications without having to worry

    4. You would not be on a position on big implementations and find it very difficult to come in and workout the dependancies between BizTalk applications

    5. Would make it easier for phased migrations of projects during BizTalk upgrade projects or in moves to cloud based BizTalk from on-premise

    • What can be done to fix it:

    Implement feature as described above

    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 

    Im not sure, something in me feels it shouldnt be that difficult and would give benefits to the product team in terms of simplification but it probably means changes to the underlying message agent so may not be so simple



    Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:19 AM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: Templates for the artifacts.
      I'd like to use the templates on development stage. Templates for ports, orchestrations.
      For example: a template for the receive port. I want to create many ports and use a template with the same pipe, handler, type, transport with a placeholder for the URL like \\MyPath\<changeHere>\Order<changeHere>.txt, service window. etc. 
      Templates would enable the fast creation and the code consistency.
    • What can be done to fix it: There could be many implementation designs.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 2-5. It will not change anything but will be addition to the existed code. It could be really simple.

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: the Naming Conventions in Examples

    Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:38 PM
    Moderator
    • What I miss in BizTalk: An export and an import for the <All Artifacts> in the BizTalk Admin Console. Th Global binding file.
      It would be helpful for the moving environments, for the global changes in the environments. 
      An example: one of the network disk was changed and we need to change all URLs in many ports from \\OldShare\ to the \\NewShare\. It is not the application level change, it is exactly the global change I would like to export <All Artifacts> and create a global binding file (binding for all applications); replace the share in this binding file; import this global binding file.
      Another example: we replace the hardware and want to move all application into new BizTalk Group without any changes in the applications. Now it is app by app stupid process.
    • What can be done to fix it: Add this functionality.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 2-3. Probably it will not change anything in existed code.

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: the Naming Conventions in Examples

    Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:11 PM
    Moderator
    • What I miss in BizTalk: Auditing of every change, made to the system.
      Every  single change that is done to a BizTalk system (stop/start endpoints, deploy, configure ports/locations, change business rules...) should be logged to an AuditTrail table.  Every large organization is looking to different levels of compliancy and needs something like this.  
    • What can be done to fix it: Just implement it
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 2 - I would think it is an easy fix, but asked it already for years, so it's probably more difficult ;)

    Sam Vanhoutte - CTO Codit - VTS-P BizTalk - Windows Azure Integration: www.integrationcloud.eu


    Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:56 AM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: The ESB Toolkit should use the supported adapters.
      As long as the ESB Toolkit is using the deprecated (SOAP) or non-supported (SQL) adapters, we cannot tell our customers to move away from SQL to WCF-SQL and SOAP to WCF...  If ESB toolkit wants to be considered as a serious add-on to BizTalk, it should at least leverage the supported adapters.  
    • What can be done to fix it: Change the implementation to WCF & WCF-SQL adapter
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 5 - Our customers need to change their flows , Microsoft should change their flows too ;)

    Sam Vanhoutte - CTO Codit - VTS-P BizTalk - Windows Azure Integration: www.integrationcloud.eu


    Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:12 AM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: A more user friendly way to edit the SOAP or HTTP Actions.
      The 
      BtsActionMapping XML that needs to be configured in the WCF send ports is just the opposite from being user friendly.  I believe this should be easier to configure in a product like BizTalk Server.  Using an XML in a front-end application (even for sysadmins) doesn't make sense.  With the REST adapter, the same thing happens for the HTTP/Uri mapping.  
    • What can be done to fix it: Add a basic editable list for the mapping
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 2 - It's just UI ...


    Sam Vanhoutte - CTO Codit - VTS-P BizTalk - Windows Azure Integration: www.integrationcloud.eu

    Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:05 AM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: I cannot change the behaviour of the Biztalk HL7 Accelarator regarding receiving acknowlegde and resuming or suspending a message. Currently a Commit/Application, Reject ACK Suspends the message. I would like the option to retry the message.
    • What can be done to fix it: Change the MLLP Send Adapter Processing behaviour.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 1 think this is a very simple option to add.
    Monday, April 29, 2013 11:57 AM
    • What I miss in BizTalk:
      BizTalk Admin Console: Consolidated Event Viewer for all BizTalk application servers in group. 
      Here is a real-world example: the orchestration instance output some event logs to the Server1, then this instance dehydrated, then restarted on the Server2 and output another event logs. Now I cannot use the BizTalk Admin Console to watch the events (or I have to manually switch between servers). I have to use third part tools to view consolidated event output.
    • What can be done to fix it: add it to the BizTalk Admin Console.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 1-2(easy)

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: the Naming Conventions in Examples

    Friday, May 10, 2013 7:22 PM
    Moderator
  • What I miss in BizTalk: When consuming a MEX/ASMX end-point, the wizard generates a blank orchestration with the messages, port types, etc. This is a pain incase you;re writing an orchestration that consumes multiple such services.

    What can be done to fix it: Permit the user to select an EXISTING Orchetsration (.odx) into which to generate the Message Types, Port Types, etc.

    Do I think it is an easy fix: Yes. 1-2.

    When consuming multiple services, it is a pain to recreate the Multi-part message types and Port Types into the ONE orchestration that will use them all. [OR am I missing something]

    Regards.

    Monday, May 13, 2013 7:38 AM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: Tracking of the BizTalk Applications. Frequently I need to turn on tracking for everything in an application then turn it off. 
      Now I have to turn on/off the tracking for all internal app artifacts which is annoying. And it is easy to forget to turn off some tracking. I'm debugging or researching on the application level because usually the messages are passed between ports-pipes-orchs of one application.
    • What can be done to fix it: Add it
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 1-2(easy)

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: the Naming Conventions in Examples

    Monday, May 13, 2013 9:17 PM
    Moderator
  • Hi Leonid

    I dont think this is a good BizTalk feature as it should be at the Windows level in my opinion then its usable across products.

    Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:39 PM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: Simplified EDI Agreements (yes, I said it)
    • What can be done to fix it: Break a couple of unnecessary dependencies and restrictions in TPM.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 2

    An Agreement should be one way only with a special case for Acknowledgements (TA1, 997, 999, etc).

    Resolution should be by 1) Pipeline Property, then 2) Port (Send or Receive), then 3) Sender/Receiver ID.

    Duplicate Sender/Receiver combinations should be allowed.  We can deploy schemas with the same signature so this wouldn't be any different.

    Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:14 PM
    Moderator
    • What I miss in BizTalk: "Enable routing for failed orchestration" option for orchestration.
      This option pretty useful on ports. ESB Toolkit adds something similar on the orchestration level. It packs the exception and contextual information in a fault message and publishes it. If I just checked the option for the orchestration and the unhandled exception in orchestration would be issued (as it is on ports) with all orch messages and context. It would make the error handling more consistent. It would dramatically reduce the orchestration logic, because the most of this logic usually is the error handling. 
    • What can be done to fix it: Implement it.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 5-9. ESB Toolkit could be used as a basic idea, but this feature would required some addition to the xLANG and to the Orchestration Engine.

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: the Naming Conventions in Examples


    Thursday, June 06, 2013 6:58 PM
    Moderator
  • I haven't read the entire thread so it might be already in here:

    • What I miss in BizTalk: Visual indication whether a destination field in a map has a value assigned. Now you can only get an indication (hyperlink chain) if a field is linked, but you need to click every individual field to find out about a possible value
    • What can be done to fix it: Implement it.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 1

    Jean-Paul Smit | Didago IT Consultancy
    Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn
    MCTS BizTalk 2006/2010 + Certified SOA Architect

    Please indicate "Mark as Answer" if this post has answered the question.

    Monday, June 10, 2013 8:34 AM
    • What I miss in BizTalk: Allow Agreements between Profiles in the same Party
    • What can be done to fix it: Break another unnecessary dependency in TPM.
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? 1

    For cases where internal applications exchange EDI or where BizTalk serves as a front-end or gateway.

    In those scenarios, again quite frequent, TPM introduces complexity because we have to create a separate Party for every internal application (which kinda defeats the purpose or Profiles).

    And because unique sender/receiver combinations are required, we end up with each direction of a relationship in different Agreements between different Parties.

    Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:19 PM
    Moderator
    • What I miss in BizTalk: Using an IIS on a separate server. Now I have to use an IIS installed on the same box with BizTalk Server. This coupling creates problems with settings and performance. In production environment the IIS is frequently managed by a special team and with the special policies, completely different with the BizTalk management.
    • What can be done to fix it: I don't know
    • Do I think it is an easy fix? it could be hard to implement

    Leonid Ganeline [BizTalk MVP] BizTalk: the Naming Conventions in Examples

    Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:46 PM
    Moderator