Hi,

What is the difference between WCF LOB Adapter and BizTalk Server Adapter?

I know that WCF based adapter can be used outside BizTalk also. Is there any scenario where this is useful? I have never seen any such requirement or need.

I have read this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb798104.aspx. Looking at the API feature, does that mean that WCF based is fully managed?

Also, I understand the difference between SQL and WCF-SQL.

Thanks.

At what level are you asking?

Functionally, they provide nearly identical services, getting messages in and out of BizTalk.

Correct, technically any WCF Adapter, LOB or not, can be used outside of BizTalk.  The LOB Adapters still require a BizTalk license.

In practice, the LOB name applies to Adapters the interface with an external system/application by some form of API (SAP client libraries) vs. a pure over-the-wire protocol (such as FTP or HTTP).

Native BizTalk Adapters are built directly on the BizTalk Adapter Framework (BTAF), the BizTalk Adapter API.  WCF (LOB) Adapters are just WCF channels/bindings/elements etc. that are activated by a native bridge Adapter, WCF-Custom, WCF-BasicHttp, etc.  At runtime, it's an Adapter (WCF) within an Adapter (BTAF).

Yes, WCF Adapters are fully managed and in practice so are most BTAF Adapters.

Which to use?  That depends on a lot of things.  I still would use BTAF for any new Adapter implementation.  It's just easier to create a BizTalk-only Adapter that way and WCF has too much 'Framework goop' and 'SOAP-ness' to work around.

However, if your target is a system that is mostly HTTP/SOAP but not handled directly by WCF, that situation can usually be handled by just extending WCF with a custom element somewhere like an Encoder or Behavior.

At what level are you asking?

Functionally, they provide nearly identical services, getting messages in and out of BizTalk.

Correct, technically any WCF Adapter, LOB or not, can be used outside of BizTalk.  The LOB Adapters still require a BizTalk license.

In practice, the LOB name applies to Adapters the interface with an external system/application by some form of API (SAP client libraries) vs. a pure over-the-wire protocol (such as FTP or HTTP).

Native BizTalk Adapters are built directly on the BizTalk Adapter Framework (BTAF), the BizTalk Adapter API.  WCF (LOB) Adapters are just WCF channels/bindings/elements etc. that are activated by a native bridge Adapter, WCF-Custom, WCF-BasicHttp, etc.  At runtime, it's an Adapter (WCF) within an Adapter (BTAF).

Yes, WCF Adapters are fully managed and in practice so are most BTAF Adapters.

Which to use?  That depends on a lot of things.  I still would use BTAF for any new Adapter implementation.  It's just easier to create a BizTalk-only Adapter that way and WCF has too much 'Framework goop' and 'SOAP-ness' to work around.

However, if your target is a system that is mostly HTTP/SOAP but not handled directly by WCF, that situation can usually be handled by just extending WCF with a custom element somewhere like an Encoder or Behavior.

• Proposed as answer by boatseller 17 hours 44 minutes ago

I know that WCF based adapter can be used outside BizTalk also. Is there any scenario where this is useful? I have never seen any such requirement or need.

The choice of using BTAF or WCF LOB is a design choice to be considered when you're building an adapter. If you have an existing WCF Service which is being leveraged to integrate/expose an existing system [a scenario where there is an integration in place only BizTalk is not involved and BizTalk is introduced] then utilising the LOB Adapter will make them available through BizTalk [not that WCF cannot be directly consumed] as an extension to the framework. This way you do not test the base integration functionality and the only unknown [thing to test] is the LOB extensions thereby reducing the overall time to bring it into the framework.

If you;re choosing to expose a system which you want accessible through BizTalk (only) then BTAF would be the way to go. There again, I would restrict it to transport level adapters [e.g.: you want to communicate with multiple serial devices - since that is what is supported then it'd make sense to write an adapter to handle the serial communications]. Going by my example, I'd be hard put to explain why I should not create a service which exposed WCF-endpoint and leverage the LOB in the first place. :)

Regards.

Hi Dipti

Native Adapters are distinguished from other adapters by being integrated directly into Biz Talk Server and preregistered with the product .The precise nature of integration varies from adapter to adapter .

You can think native adapters as a base library that ships with the product and covers perhaps 80 % or more of real world adaption needs.Most native adapters are transport adapters . They handle well know transport protocol and delivery mechanism and not specific to any given System or application.

While The Native adapters include a library of WCF adapters for Several System Provided WCF binding
LOB adapters are specific to third party technologies including People Soft,JD Edwards,TIBCO,IBM WebSphere .
LOB adapters increase the reach of Biz Talk Server to Integrate with Different Enterprise Application

Thanks

Abhishek

• Proposed as answer by Abhishek0127 3 hours 41 minutes ago

Hi Dipti

Native Adapters are distinguished from other adapters by being integrated directly into Biz Talk Server and preregistered with the product .The precise nature of integration varies from adapter to adapter .

You can think native adapters as a base library that ships with the product and covers perhaps 80 % or more of real world adaption needs.Most native adapters are transport adapters . They handle well know transport protocol and delivery mechanism and not specific to any given System or application.

While The Native adapters include a library of WCF adapters for Several System Provided WCF binding
LOB adapters are specific to third party technologies including People Soft,JD Edwards,TIBCO,IBM WebSphere .
LOB adapters increase the reach of Biz Talk Server to Integrate with Different Enterprise Application

Thanks

Abhishek

• Proposed as answer by Abhishek0127 Monday, January 20, 2014 7:45 AM