Win a copy of Testing JavaScript Applications this week in the HTML Pages with CSS and JavaScript forum!

Sachet Varma

Ranch Hand
+ Follow
since Jun 07, 2009
Cows and Likes
Cows
Total received
0
In last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Likes
Total received
0
Received in last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Given in last 30 days
0
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Ranch Hand Scavenger Hunt
expand Greenhorn Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Sachet Varma

It was ok , bt dont rely on those alone.
Yes , I do have work exp in JAX-RPC. I took the MZ Quiz as well as Whizlabs and free mock pdfs that came with 20-30 questions. there were couple of posts in javaranch where racnhers have posted their own compiled quizzes
Blue Prints - https://blueprints.dev.java.net/books.html

I didnt refer Ivan's guide since its for SCDJWS 5.
Hi ,

Well its was pretty much equal coverage. For the last two objectives , I referred to Mz's guide and the Blue Prints. Read the Blue Prints thoroughly. A lot of questions are from there.

You need to know JAXB , JAXP API very well. Also pay attention to the UDDI Inquiry and publishing queries.

The exam wasnt that tough , but do take time to sit and understand everything and what the BP says on certain topics like WSDL and other specifications.

I have spent close to 2 months perparing for this with 4-5 hours put in each day. This exam requires a lot of reading , so when planning for this , see that you have the req prep time.

hope this helps.

By the way Ivan Krizsan is a Ranch Hand and has also come out with study notes for the SCDJWS 5 exam.


Hi all,

I have passed SCDJWS (310-220) with a score of 98%.

My resources were:
1) RMH
2) Blue prints
3) MZ guide and Quiz

A huge Thank You to Ivan for clearing a lot of my doubts that would crop up from time to time. Great guide Mikalai. Hope I can look forward to similar quiz material when I appear for my upgrade exam sometime in the next 6 months

This forum has been very helpful and would like to thank you all for helping me pass this.




Hi Asit,

The BP requires that the soap:Body's children are namespace qualified.

Hence
<i>
<soap:Body>
<mi:msg xmlns:mi=URL1>
<hello>Greetings</hello>
</mi:msg>
</soap:Body>

</i>

is considered BP conformant
Hi Ivan,

Well , I thought so as well. But then for a dynamic proxy -



this would mean that we would definitely need to know the 'type' of the port class. Hence we lose flexibility there.

Now , for a DII


this would mean that we would have to now only the required QNames from the wsdl description.

Somehow , DII seems to be more flexible since we dont have any 'class type' information being passed.

Thats my reasoning Ivan. Let me know if I have slipped in my reasoning though.
why is the dynamic proxy considered more portable than DII? In both cases we only use the generic Service class and do not have any port specific stub classes generated.

So why would dynamic porxies be considered more portable than DII?

Any thoughts?
The first para seems to be conflicting whats stated in the second para.

Multiple Ports on an Endpoint
When input messages destined for two different wsdl:ports at the same network endpoint are indistinguishable on the wire, it may not be possible to determine the wsdl:port being invoked by them. This may cause interoperability problems. However, there may be situations (e.g., SOAP versioning, application versioning, conformance to different profiles) where it is desirable to locate more than one port on an endpoint; therefore, the Profile allows this.

R271 A DESCRIPTION SHOULD NOT have more than one wsdl:port with the same value for the location attribute of the soapbind:address element.


Two port definitons CANNOT have soap:address location attribute under any circumstance, am I right? Why does the first para indicate that the WS-I does allow it? So what is conformant and what isnt???
Thank you Ivan. Its clear now.
Hi,

Other than the syn and async mode , to determine when to use which ( RPC - sync , doc/lit - async)
what other distinctions can be made?

For instance , if a certain web service can return multiple types of documents depending on certain input conditions , would not doc/literal be considered better over RPC since you can send over a complete document , in other words , an XML which doesnt have to be type specific?

Do let me know if my understanding is right.

Thanks
Doesnt JAXB score over DOM2 everytime? In the sense , if I have a document , I can marshall it into its object oriented version of interfaces and content trees.
So even if various parts of my app need to work on the doc , I have the XML represented n these classes.

So when would I ever want to use DOM over JAXB??

Do let me know if my concepts are shaky.