Thanx for reply.

What you are saying about using orchestration as a responser – it is truly the correct way, but it is still another piece of code to maintain.
The “hack” is just returning “Succeess” or “Failure with description” immidiately after the message was put (or not ☺ ) to the message box.
Anyway, finally we did use one-way WCF with custom binding.

Though, now there’s another issue with sertificate definitions – it looks like Receive Location’s definition doesn’t keep definition for extension called “context”. After I choose to use Sign only incoming message – and if I export receive location *.config, the line called stays empty. Even more than that: when I add to *.config desired definition manually – and import that configuration, and immidiately export configuration back – the definition is cleared.

Here http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/biztalkr2adapters/thread/46e9345c-cb50-44ce-9084-807b9b3c1c58/ I see the exact problem, with slight difference – that instead of generated client – I have published schemas as WCF – therefore I have no code to add attribute to.

Possibly the solution to my problem will be writing some little WCF-Proxy, which will “pass” to Biztalk non-encrypted message, and the client from other side will contact with that proxy, and not actually Biztalk itself.

I’m curious, though as to what kind of response you could’ve generated on your asmx hack that wasn’t a default “done” response (and if so, why you didn’t just go with a one-way service in the first place)

I”m trying to migrate from some scenario which works for ASMX – to WCF:

Im publishing two schemas, one request and the other – response, as a web service. After I run the wizard, Im changing the generated code in *.cs file of web application – to responde immidiately, and not to wait while some BTS application will respond for the request. Since after running WCF publishiung wizard there’s no any code, just binding and seralization schema, how can I interfere into my request-response flow? Have any idea?