Why BizTalk Server 2010 R2 should be BizTalk Server 2013

Listen with webReader
Published 03 January 12 07:33 PM | Johan Hedberg

That BizTalk Server 2010 will have a successor and that the working title of that release is BizTalk Server 2010 R2 was announced at the BizTalk Server team blog in december 2011 and re-announced by folks like Kent Weare, Charles Young, Saravana Kumar, Steef-Jan Wiggers among others.

What some of them hints at but doesn’t discuss further is that the version naming “2010 R2” might not stick. There are good grounds for such guesses. Historically BizTalk Server 2009 was initially called BizTalk Server 2006 R3 before the renaming was announced and BizTalk Server 2010 was called BizTalk Server 2009 R2 when first announced before it too was renamed.

One might argue that the R2 is a good suffix in this release since it is a minor release, without an abundance of new functionality. That’s true.

One might argue that there is only so much to a name, the important thing is that Microsoft is showing that it will continue to maintain and carefully evolve the product. Not so I say.

There is one very important thing that goes into that name that should not be overlooked or underestimated – the support lifecycle. Microsoft’s support lifecycle policy says that products will have 5+5 (mainstream+extended) support. However, that applies to major versions. An excerpt:

“Minor releases follow the same Support Lifecycle as the major product release.

An example of this is Windows Server 2003 R2 which has the same Mainstream Support phase and Extended Support phase dates as the parent product, Windows Server 2003. Likewise, Windows Server 2008 R2 follows the same Support Lifecycle dates as the initial release of Windows Server 2008”

If the product will be BizTalk Server 2010 R2 (and assuming it will follow the general rule), it will not get an extended support lifecycle end date. Except for what is stated in the general policy you can see examples of this scheme throughout the product chain. BizTalk Server 2006 and 2006 R2 are the closest examples, but also Windows Server 2008 and 2008 R2, and SQL Server 2008 and 2008 R2 both follow suit. In all these cases the R2 version does not start a new 5+5 year period. Where as with BizTalk Server 2006 R2 to BizTalk Server 2009 and again to BizTalk Server 2010, we got new lifecycle support dates.

One of the major asks around BizTalk Server before the announcement was for Microsoft to clearly show its continued support for BizTalk Server as a product – they did that, but here is hoping that they will strengthen that statement further by giving us a BizTalk Server 2013 (or 2012).

HTH
/Johan

Comments

# Mike Stephenson said on January 5, 2012 06:05 PM:

Good points Johan, totally agree with the comments around support life cycle and marketing benefits of it being called BizTalk 2012 (or 13) but in addition to this i think the fact it is targeting a whole new infrastructure platform SQL 2012, Windows 8, Visual Studio 11 it would seem to make common sense to consider it a full new release rather than an extension.  There hasnt really been any comment any support for Win 2008 R2 or if there is a backwards compatibility story

# Johan Hedberg said on January 7, 2012 08:27 PM:

Agreed. I guess the backward compatability will depend largely upon how different Windows 8 is. If history is a pointer to the future there will be backwards compatability to 2008 R2 of both Windows and SQL, but that remains to be seen.

# Michael Dyck said on April 2, 2012 10:24 PM:

Don't forget about the impact on upgrade licenses for customers who have purchased software assurance. If the product is called BizTalk 2010 R2 then customers who purchased BizTalk 2006 licences can upgrade to it for free, but if it is called BizTalk 2012 then those same customers would have to pay for an upgrade.

# Johan Hedberg said on June 21, 2012 08:15 AM:

@Michael Good point indeed. That had not crossed my mind. Having seen the TechEd 2012 NA presentations frmo the team, even though they still term it as BizTalk Server 2010 R2, I am more convinced than ever that this version should be 2013. There are just so many things added that I do not see this being an R2 version.

@Tony Again, TechEd 2012 NA clearly shows that BizTalk Server is here to stay, long term.

# Be Logical - writings by Johan Hedberg said on June 26, 2012 12:44 AM:

I have already relayed this information to so many, and given the links to more, that I though I’d put

# What’s in a Name? « Extremely Talented Monkeys said on July 11, 2012 06:27 PM:

Pingback from  What’s in a Name? « Extremely Talented Monkeys

# BizTalk Server 2013 | Service Oriented Architecture - SOA said on November 9, 2012 01:01 AM:

Pingback from  BizTalk Server 2013 | Service Oriented Architecture - SOA

This Blog

News

    Messenger

    Twitter Updates

      Follow me on twitter

      Visitors

      Feedburner Subscribers

      Locations of visitors to this page

      Disclaimer

      All material is provided AS IS voiding any thinkable or unthinkable effect it might have for any use whatsoever. There... is that clear enough ;)

      Pages

    Syndication