WCF-Custom with SQL Binding VS WCF-SQL in BizTalk 2009

[Manan]

Hi,

I’m doing a POC for my client using BizTalk 2009 (which is great )
and I need to use the SQL adapter.
BizTalk 2009 now provides the WCF LOB based SQL adapter. But my main
question is, why do we have a separate WCF-SQL adapter and WCF-Custom
(with SQL binding)? Which one to use? Are there any pros and cons of
using each of this? Any input on this will be very helpful.
Also in previous version of SQL adapter (BTS 2006) we need to cluster
the host instance to avoid the race condition and to avoid the receive
location getting disabled? Does the same apply with the new WCF based
adapter as well or now we don't need to cluster the host instance?

Thanks in advance.

[news.microsoft.com]

Hi,

The WCF-SQL Adapter ist to be configured as WCF-Custom.

Why did you have to cluster the receive Location in the old SQL adapter?

I would suggest to set the BizTalk Host to run 32 bit in order to avoid
possible pitfalls.

Thanks, regards

Joerg Fischer

"Manan" <shah.m...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:47ab3497-0a63-469f...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

[Manan]

On 4 Nov, 09:40, "news.microsoft.com" <Joerg Fischer> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The WCF-SQL Adapter ist to be configured as WCF-Custom.
>
> Why did you have to cluster the receive Location in the old SQL adapter?
>
> I would suggest to set the BizTalk Host to run 32 bit in order to avoid
> possible pitfalls.
>
> Thanks, regards
>
> Joerg Fischer
>

> "Manan" <shah.mana...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:47ab3497-0a63-469f...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

> Hi,
>
> I’m doing a POC for my client using BizTalk 2009 (which is great )
> and I need to use the SQL adapter.
> BizTalk 2009 now provides the WCF LOB based SQL adapter. But my main
> question is, why do we have a separate WCF-SQL adapter and WCF-Custom
> (with SQL binding)? Which one to use? Are there any pros and cons of
> using each of this? Any input on this will be very helpful.
> Also in previous version of SQL adapter (BTS 2006) we need to cluster
> the host instance to avoid the race condition and to avoid the receive
> location getting disabled? Does the same apply with the new WCF based
> adapter as well or now we don't need to cluster the host instance?
>
> Thanks in advance.

Hi Joerg,

Thank you very much for your reply.

I agree with you no need to cluster the receive host for SQL. I was
confused with other adapters such as FTP, POP.

We can configure WCF-Custom adapter with sql binding to communicate
with the SQL server but then why do we have separate WCF-SQL adapter.
What is the difference between these two?

Cheers,
Manan

[news.microsoft.com]

Hi,

Generally speaking I found that, with the WCF-Custom Adapter, there are
many more elements which can be modified. The more specific adapters
sometime do not offer all possibilities, but are easier to configure in the
first place.

Regards

Joerg Fischer

"Manan" <shah.m...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

news:f14d601d-5622-4885...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...