Charles Young

  Home  |   Contact  |   Syndication    |   Login
  193 Posts | 64 Stories | 508 Comments | 373 Trackbacks

News

Twitter












Article Categories

Archives

Post Categories

Image Galleries

Alternative Feeds

BizTalk Bloggers

BizTalk Sites

CEP Bloggers

CMS Bloggers

Fun

Other Bloggers

Rules Bloggers

SharePoint Bloggers

Utilities

WF Bloggers

BizTalk Server 2004

Last week, I spent some time looking at a problem with a customer's orchestration. In one place, the developer had made extensive use of the infamous BizTalk xpath() function. This is not a true function, but a rather problematic feature of the XLang/s language that is often the cause of much pain and suffering to BizTalk developers. My advice, before I go any further, is to avoid using it and instead operate directly on the content of your messages using the XML processing features of the .NET Framework. ......

This is the third and final part of a three-part series, as follows: · Part 1: Situating the Business Rules Engine · Part 2: Backward Chaining: the 'Simple Name' pattern · Part 3: Backward Chaining: the ‘Bound Variable' pattern In Part 2 we looked at how developers can use procedural attachments and 'directive events' to implement a simple form of backward chaining for Microsoft's Business Rule Engine. The article links to the following URL where you can download a worked example: http://blog.solidsoft.com/f... ......

This is the second of a three-part series, as follows: Part 1: Situating the Business Rules Engine Part 2: Backward Chaining: the 'Simple Name' pattern Part 3: Backward Chaining: the ‘Bound Variable' pattern In part one of this three-part series, I explained some of the historical influences that led Microsoft to design their Business Rules Engine as a 'situated reasoning engine'. This aspect of the engine is centred on the following features: The abstract definition of rules in a high-level rule ......

This is the first of a three-part series, as follows: Part 1: Situating the Business Rules Engine Part 2: Backward Chaining: the 'Simple Name' pattern Part 3: Backward Chaining: the ‘Bound Variable' pattern Karl posted on forward and backward chaining at http://karlreinsch.com/2010... I emailed him privately and talked a bit about how backward chaining can be implemented on Microsoft's Business Rule Engine (I even sent him a little example). A couple of days later he published a ......

Over on the ILOG blog, Chris Berg called out Andrew Siemer’s post at http://geekswithblogs.net/A... I thought I’d post some observations by way of a response. I've been engaged full time with BizTalk Server as a consultant, architect and developer since late 2003, and work for a company with several hundred discrete BizTalk engagements under its belt. In our experience it is not uncommon for people to get the wrong idea ......

The last couple of weeks have seen a significant increase in terms of announcements and information from Microsoft ahead of the Professional Developer’s Conference next week. It is a key time for Microsoft’s Connected Systems Division (CSD) as they go public with their plans for .NET 4, Oslo and ‘Dublin’. Microsoft has also announced the forthcoming release of BizTalk Server 2009 in the first half of next year. The public ‘messaging’ for all this new technology has been a hot topic of debate within ......

Being known for my interest in rules processing, I quite often get asked to help with problems with MS BRE. A couple of days ago, I was asked to help investigate an issue occurring in production for a BizTalk Server application. Occasionally, in a fairly high throughput system, BizTalk logs an error stating that a problem has been encountered while executing a rule set. That is the only information provided, with no hint of what the problem might be, and because the issue only occurs inter


A question came up tonight on BizTalkGurus on my favourite subject of rule engines. I don’t blog enough these days, so this gives me an excuse. Essentially, the question concerned an incorrect, but understandable, belief that MS BRE may be using remoting to execute rule sets out-of-process. This is not the case. Here is an explanation of how it all works.


I’ve been asked a few times how the performance of WF (Windows Workflow Foundation) Rules compares with that of the Microsoft Business Rules Engine (MS BRE). Having done no testing, I could only guess at the answer. I’ve now undertaken some initial performance testing to compare WF and MS BRE, and decided to publish the results.


I got an email today requesting help in deciding the appropriate selection of rule processing technology for a workflow application. I’ve got requests like this before, so I’ve decided to post a reply publically.


Full BizTalk Server 2004 Archive