I am running my .Net application on maching having .Net Framework 1.1 and 2.0 and it’s working fine. But in other machine having .Net Framework 1.1, 2.0 Service Pack 1 and 3.0 Service Pack 1, this appliation is crashing with the below error.

Any clue why this is happening, and what can I do for this.

2008-09-16 09:18:01,015 [7] ERROR Simias.Event.IProcEventSubscriber – 3975 : Error communication failure.

System.Net.Sockets.SocketException: An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host

at System.Net.Sockets.Socket.BeginReceive(Byte[] buffer, Int32 offset, Int32 size, SocketFlags socketFlags, AsyncCallback callback, Object state)

at Simias.Event.IProcEventSubscriber.MessageHandler(IAsyncResult result)

This is Sudhakar, Very glad to meet all of you here.

I am new to Dot Net development. Currently I have a task to migrate .net 1.1 and 2.0 web applications into .net 3.0.

I dont know that whether .net 3.0 is backward compatible with 2.0 and 1.1. If it is not compatible, what are the diffrent types of problems we can face while migrating.

My system is running with Xp sp2, and I installed all the three 1.1/2.0/3.0 frameworks.

ivanwisnu, I don’t know what you mean by “it can’t run” in this case. The two versions can co-exist and .NET 1.1 should install normally even if 2.0 is already installed.

The PC version of Google SketchUp Pro 6 requires the Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1. During install, SketchUp will detect if the .NET Framework 1.1 is missing and will prompt you to download and install the package.

At this time, Google SketchUp Pro 6 is only compatible with version 1.1 of the .NET Framework.

I have already installed .NET Framework 2.0, and when i try to install .NET Framework 1.1 it can’t run. I use .NET Framework 2.0 for another program.

Do i have any options to install 1.1 successfully in this scenario?

I installed Microsoft visio 2007 before downloading Biztalk’s ODBA but much to my chagrin the installer did not install the software because it only works with Microsoft Visio 2003! The trial version of Visio 2003 is no longer available through MSDN. Is there any other site you could suggest where I can download a *free* version of Visio 2003 even if it is a trial?

Thanks for your help!

Jose

I’d say that the chance of trouble is very low if you install 1.1 even with all of those other things already installed. Once in a while Visual Studio has an issue with the debugger depending on order of Visual Studio side-by-side installation, but that shouldn’t come up from installing 1.1 Framework by itself. So, my gut feeling is that you won’t have any trouble. No promises of course!

I have never heard of a Rational Rose add-in like you described, sorry. That could be a nice thing to have though.

Thanks for reading!

Tom

Thank you for the WCF LOB link and the new Biztalk Adapter Development blog. I noticed that the latter is not the same as the MSDN Forum for Biztalk Adapters. Is this the case? The reason I ask this is because I did not find the MSDN forum for Biztalk Adapters helpful. I posted a similar question about problems with .net 3.5 coexisting with .net 1.1 because a 3rd party adapter requires .net 1.1. Sadly I got no response even up to today. The difference between your blog and MSDN is like the difference between night and day!

I hope you do not mind if I revisit my initial inquiry again. As you said I should not expect to find any issues with installing .net framework 1.1 along side .net 3.5 because I have no unmanged code on my machine. Does this also mean that I should not find it necessary to uninstall Microsoft Visual studio 2005, SQLSERVER 2005 Express and Biztalk Server 2006 R2 before installing .net framework 1.1 and then installing studio 2005, SQLSERVER and Biztalk all over again?

Are you aware of any “addins”, utilities or products that will enable Rational Rose to automatically generate Biztalk orchestrations ala Orchestration Designer for Business Analysts (ODBA) from UML activity diagrams? The reason I prefer Rose to Visio is because Rose has a centralized database of UML artifacts that guarantees synchronization between class and seqence diagrams. This is why it scales to large designs. Visio does not have this so it outlives its usefulness rather quickly.

Thank you for your continued, unselfish interest in helping me and others with my problems. More power to you.

Jose

jatcorominas@gmail.com

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=56278FDE-B708-469C-987E-DED9C6C5E580&displaylang=en

And a blog about BizTalk Adapter development:

http://blogs.msdn.com/biztalk_adapter_development/

In any case, all new BizTalk adapter development is using the WCF Line-of-Business Adapter SDK, which is what I referred to in my last response. You should find this a much easier platform to use than the old BizTalk Adapter Framework, and the WCF LOB SDK is actually not tied to BizTalk at all, only WCF.

Using ports and adapters gives you the benefits of tracking, some BAM integration, dynamic subscriptions and so on. If the messaging is more hard-coded into the orchestrations, it somewhat decreases the value of BizTalk as the host.

– Tom

The .net app I wrote to call MQ using IBM’s XMS framework was really very pedestrian. I set up a message producer to send JMS MapMessage objects to a topic in an expression shape. Then I set up a message consumer to subscribe to the topic asynchronously before sending it to two JMS queues in another expression shape. The two exception shapes are invoked concurrently in a parallel activity. I had no trouble getting my pure Java JMS apps to interoperate with it.

When I looked in the SOA scenario of Biztalk Server 2006 R2 Microsoft said that calling Websphere MQ Series in-line from inside an orchestration is more efficient and will result in higher throughput because it avoids the latency of read-writes to the MessageBox database. This is especially true in highly distributed architectures where the MessageBox database is on a separate dedicated server and the JMS topics or queues are on a different remote server.

I therefore have mixed feelings using the Biztalk Adapter framework because the complexity that is forced on you does not necessarily result in a better solution. I am not convinced that it will represent time well spent. The only justification that I can see in exerting all this effort is if a client’s enterprise architecture department requires line units to limit orchestrations to business rules and delegate all interfaces to external systems to adapters. And where it is hard to get exceptions to this standard approved even in the face of poor performance. Can you see any other circumstances where this makes sense?

I will look at the WCF Adapter. Is it really easier to use than the BizTalk Adapter Framework…Just out of curiosity, do you think the Biztalk Adapter Framework was badly designed or not well thought out?