microsoft.public.sqlserver.notificationsvcs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Hosting the Notifications services 2.0 database on SQL Server 2005

Subject: Re: Hosting the Notifications services 2.0 database on SQL Server 2005
From: "Kevin Jackson"
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:59:34 -0500
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.notificationsvcs
Yes unfortunately, we cannot upgrade out subscription management application 
to 2.0 at this time as it calls 1.1 components from our application and it 
can't be upgraded for 6-7 months.

We decided to host a SQL Server 2000 instance for the notification system. 
Microsoft's licensing agreement is such that we would need to pay a license 
either way.

"Joe Webb" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]
> Well, if you've install SQL Server 2005, you already have v2.0 of the
> .NET Framework.
>
> Is the issue is that you cannot upgrade your Subscription Management
> Application to Framework v2.0 for some reason? If that it, one
> possbility is that you can use SQLNS 2005 and then create a web
> service in v2.0 of the .NET Framework to expose WebMethods for
> subscription management interfaces. Your Sub Mgt App can then use the
> web service interface to manage subscriptions, subscribers, etc.
>
> HTH...
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> -- 
> Joe Webb
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqlns.com
>
>
> ~~~
> Get up to speed quickly with SQLNS
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0972688811
>
> I support PASS, the Professional Association for SQL Server.
> (www.sqlpass.org)
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:56:42 -0500, "Kevin Jackson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>We are using SQL Server Notifications Services 2.0 which comes with SQL
>>Server 2000.  We have upgraded to SQL Server 2005 but cannot yet use the
>>notifications services that come with 2005 yet because we cannot switch 
>>over
>>to the .NET 2.0 Framework.
>>
>>Is it possible to host the NS 2.0 database on SQL Server 2005?  Will the
>>utility that creates the NS 2.0 database work when pointed to SQL Server
>>2005.
>>
>>We don't want to have to run a SQL Server 2000 database server if at all
>>possible.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Kevin Jackson
>> 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>