Wednesday, November 14, 2007

WMI Scripting for BizTalk Operations Tasks

While reading a BizTalk Forum on MSDN, I came across a post asking for guidance on detecting when a Receive Location is disabled that did not include MOM. I knew that a lot of information is retrievable via WMI, but I never investigated it much because we use MOM at the organization that I am with.

So I started to dig into WMI some more and came across this post that describes how you can added the managed WMI classes to your .Net application(Console/Winform/Service etc).

I looked for a class that could help out with a disabled receive location and found this class: MSBTS_ReceiveLocation. When I selected "Generate Managed Class" a file was added to my solution called: ROOT.MicrosoftBizTalkServer.MSBTS_ReceiveLocation.cs
With this class added to my solution, detecting whether or not the receive location was enabled was a breeze:

WMITest.ROOT.MICROSOFTBIZTALKSERVER.ReceiveLocation rl =new WMITest.ROOT.MICROSOFTBIZTALKSERVER.ReceiveLocation("yourmanagementdb", "yourservername", "receivelocationname","receiveportname");

if (rl.IsDisabled)

Another Class that I can see some value in using is the MSBTS_HostInstance class. This took me a few minutes to figure out. In order to create an object instance of one of Host Intances run the following code:

WMITest.ROOT.MICROSOFTBIZTALKSERVER.HostInstance hi =new WMITest.ROOT.MICROSOFTBIZTALKSERVER.HostInstance("yourmanagementdb", "servername", "Microsoft BizTalk Server Hostinstancename servername");

if (hi.ServiceState == WMITest.ROOT.MICROSOFTBIZTALKSERVER.HostInstance.ServiceStateValues.Stopped)


The last parameter when instantiating the object threw me for a loop. In order to figure exactly what the WMI call was expecting, I decided to check out the BizTalkMgmtDb to figure out what the "internal" name was. I found this value in the adm_HostInstance table in the Name column.

Overall it was a good experience playing with some of this WMI. As time permits I plan on doing some additional investigation.

No comments: