Named pipes vs Message Queue

Hello, I have some questions about the advantages and disadvantages of using Named pipes, Message Queues or sockets with a NAS. I want to know what are the differences concerning: Performance(which one is better? has one of these methods a real (dis)advantages comparing to the other methods?) Capacity(How many messages can be stored in these kind of queues/sockets?) Future(Which method can be used best when we take in account future releases of Navision(and NAS)?) Maintenance(Which method has the least work to maintain?) Thank you in advance, Ramon

I’ve made some tests on Attain 3.10 and found problems with MSMQ because NAS service stopped every time I passed data through MSMQ. I changed to Named Pipes and everything worked very fast. I don’t know if the latest version has corrected such problem.

Hello I’m trying to deploy communications between a web page and Navision via Named Pipes in Navision 3.70, but Navision hangs when I try to send a XML document to the named pipe. The code I use to send P_xmlDOM to the named pipe P_PipeName (say, P_PipeName = ‘TestPipe’) is: IF ISCLEAR(L_CC2) THEN CREATE(L_CC2); IF ISCLEAR(L_NPBA) THEN CREATE(L_NPBA); L_NPBA.OpenNamedPipe(P_PipeName, 0, 0); L_CC2.AddBusAdapter(L_NPBA, 0); L_OutMessage := L_CC2.CreateoutMessage(‘Named Pipe://’ + P_PipeName);; (L_CC2 and L_NPBA are the obvious automation objects, declared locals). It seems that the problem comes from the GetStream() method. I think Navision doesn’t like the syntax for the Named Pipe I’m using. Can you provide working code for a communication using Named Pipes, please? Thank you, Toni