Yep, seems like Dan has the ideal solution--VERY cool! Thanks Dan!
Erin
Zoe Hart wrote:
> Erin,
>
> Thanks for the suggestions. An ideal solution would be to modify the
> original orchestration so that it was resumable. Technically that could
be
> done. But it is a large complicated orchestration with many, many
potential
> points of failure and the effort to make it resumable at this point is
more
> than my client wants to spend. We have invested a fair amount of effort
in
> the past month or so identifying and eliminating root causes of failure
in
> an effort to reduce the failure rate. That has been successful, which of
> course has reduced the business' appetite for making the orchestration
> handle failures better. So we've chosen the approach of allowing the
> orchestration to fail, but attempting to eliminate the huge mass of
> suspended messages that currently results.
>
> I've considered the possibility of going to one-way receives and sends.
The
> problem I think I have with that is that a one-way HTTP Receive will
send an
> HTTP 200 response when the message is received and that isn't
necessarily
> what I want to happen during this "wait and see what IT wants to do"
period.
> The reason for the message to IT is that in some rare cases, we have
> suspended orchestration instances that actually are resumable and in
that
> case I don't want the third party to have gotten a successful response
to
> their message. I will eventually be sending HTTP 200 responses to the
third
> party messages, but only after IT has indicated that's what they want
the
> Responder to do.
>
> I think the path I'll follow is what Dan Rosanova suggests in the
subsequent
> reply - to add some code in the section of my Responder orchestration
that
> is waiting for the IT response. That code will listen for messages from
my
> third party and send them negative (maybe HTTP 5xx) responses. That will
> keep IIS happy because I'm responding in a timely fa****on and will keep
my
> third party resending messages until IT has time to respond. I'm going
to
> give that a try.
>
> Thanks again for your suggestions... and for taking the time to read
through
> and understand my situation.
>
> Zoe
>
|
