BizTalk 2006 R2 SP1 alters the disassembling behaviour of a Receive pipeline !
In my previous post I mentioned i noticed a change in the disassembling behaviour of BizTalk Server 2006 R2 after installing SP 1.
After I got home after work I sat down and looked somewhere on my harddisk for an old version of a BizTalk 2006 Virtual PC. After a while I found one that was approximately one and a half year untouched. So I sat down and Fired it up...
First get all the updates that have been since then, geeeeeez there have been many, I had about 80 of them and i completely forgot that some of them took ages to install (Visual Studio SP / Several Dotnet's etc). Whel about two hours later i could test my scenario.
I created a solution and I copied (used cut & paste) the envelope and body from the previous post to this solution. Add a strong key, deploy and I was off to test.
With the pre SP1 BizTalk 2006 R2 (On Windows Server 2003 R2) I got the results I expected.
So i copied the entire VPC to a new location and added the extension SP1 to the machine name to distinguish it from the other. Then i downloaded and installed Service pack 1 for BizTalk 2006 R2.
After a reboot I was good to go....
To my dissapointment i got the same result as on work. Below is a
Event Type: Error
Event Source: BizTalk Server 2006
Event Category: BizTalk Server 2006
Event ID: 5719
Date: 3/19/2010
Time: 10:42:38 PM
User: N/A
Computer: TITANNIC
Description:
There was a failure executing the receive pipeline: "Microsoft.BizTalk.DefaultPipelines.XMLReceive, Microsoft.BizTalk.DefaultPipelines, Version=3.0.1.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" Source: "Pipeline " Receive Port: "Batched Receive" URI: "C:\Projects\Service Pack Test\Service Pack Test\Test\Input\*.xml" Reason: The disassembler found an envelope that does not have the body element.
For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
So i can definitelye say : SP1 for BizTalk 2006 R2 alters the default disassembling behaviour ! ( And in my case broke my solution)
For everybody who wants to test, I have added a very small solution to demonstrate what goes wrong.....