Help coderanch get a
new server
by contributing to the fundraiser

Asit Baran

Greenhorn
+ Follow
since Oct 13, 2008
Merit badge: grant badges
For More
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 Asit Baran

Hi Prashant,
I think, the preparation for 310-220 and 310-230 is slight bit different and sun is going to invalidate the earlier version in next couple of weeks. I took the older one because i started preparing long time back, so my preparation might not match your requirement. Anyways, I prepared these stuffs:
  • RMH(if you are a newbie, this should be your starting point)
  • XYZ materials and mock exams (this materials are crisp and stright to the point)
  • MZ Notes and MZ quiz(It's recommended to refer his notes for last couple of objectives, though the entire note is pretty good)
  • Ivan's note (This is for mainly SCDJWS 1.5 though i covered some topics from here too)

  • Thanks and best of luck
    Thanks MZ...it would not have been possible without your help...And this is the most helpful forum i ever got for clearing all the doubts..thanks to all you guys...specially Ivan and MZ
    I just called Sun customer care No: (800) 422-8020 and he told me this might be different based on location. 310-220 might be obsolete in US but might be valid in India. I also called India Customer care no: (800) 425-1234 but no one is picking up. Can anyone please confirm the 310-220 status for India? I was planning to take the exam on 5th( i.e. Just 2 days left) ...feeling really frustrated now
    I couldn't find any such restriction on BP 1.0 which is available at this link. Is it added in the latest version? Please confirm.
    If i encrypt any original XML document it would become:

    Now if i encrypt it again(Super Encryption), it would become:


    Now, my doubt is, for both the case, structure is exactly same. How could a receiver know whether to decrypt once or twice? Is there any way to specify the level of encryption the sender is applying?
    Thanks for the reply. If I get you right,

    <soap:Fault xmlns:soap='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/' xmlns='' >
    <faultcode>soap:Client</faultcode>
    <faultstring>Invalid message format</faultstring>
    </soap:Fault>

    is NOT a valid SOAP fault according to BP. But in BP 1.0 specification (http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html#refinement16436064) I found the same example(i.e. Under the header "4.1.3 SOAP Faults and Namespaces") given as CORRECT.
    Please let me know if I'm missing anything.

    Thanks,
    Asit
    Thanks for the reply. Actually I'm concerned about the namespace of <soap:Fault>'s child elements.
    Case 1
    <soap:Fault xmlns:soap='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/' xmlns='' >
    <faultcode>soap:Client</faultcode>
    <faultstring>Invalid message format</faultstring>
    </soap:Fault>
    Now this is a valid fault message but <faultcode> and <faultstring> belongs to blank namespace because of " xmlns='' "
    Case 2
    <soap:Fault xmlns:soap='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/'>
    <faultcode>soap:Client</faultcode>
    <faultstring>Invalid message format</faultstring>
    </soap:Fault>
    Now this is also a valid fault message but <faultcode> and <faultstring> belongs to 'http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/' namespace.

    Now what a client should expect? Or he just doesn't bother anything about the namespace of those elements (i.e. <faultcode> and <faultstring>)? Any pointer would be appreciated.

    Thanks,
    Asit
    According to BP rule
    R1001 When a MESSAGE contains a soap:Fault element its element children MUST be unqualified.
    CORRECT
    <soap:Fault xmlns:soap='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/' xmlns='' >
    <faultcode>soap:Client</faultcode>
    ..........
    </soap:Fault>
    CORRECT [Please let me know if NOT !]
    <soap:Fault xmlns:soap='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/' >
    <faultcode>soap:Client</faultcode>
    ..........
    </soap:Fault>

    Now, in both the cases the child elements of the <soap:Fault> belong to different namespaces. For the first case it belongs to blank namespace and for the second case it belongs to 'http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/' namespace. Will not this cause any interoperability problem ? Are these valid SOAPFault examples according to BP 1.0?
    So is the message valid?
    <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/'>
    <soap:Body>
    <p:Process xmlns:p='http://example.org/Operations'>
    <m:Envelope xmlns:m='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/'>
    ..............
    Will not this line[marked in bold] cause a problem? Can we have child elements under <soap:Body> which belongs to 'http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/' namespace?

    XML signatures to certain portions of an XML document guarantees that the entire XML document signed has not been modified in transit.(True/ False) ?
    SOAP Message :
    <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/'>
    <soap:Body>
    <p:Process xmlns:p='http://example.org/Operations'>
    <m:Envelope xmlns:m='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/'>
    .......
    </m:Envelope>
    </p:Process>
    </soap:Body>
    </soap:Envelope>
    What is going to happen when a Web service (whose implementation conforms to WS-I Basic Profile 1.0a) receives the following SOAP message?
    Ans:
  • Generate a fault for the SOAP Message
  • Process the message for the SOAP Message

  • What will be the answer?

    Actually I'm not sure whether a soap:Header or soap:Body can have child elements which belongs to this 'http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/' namespace. Can we have an 'soap:Envelope' within 'soap:Body' or 'soap:Body' within another 'soap:Body'? Is there any restrictions on that? While searching BP rules, I only got this,
    R1003 A RECEIVER MUST accept fault messages that have any number of qualified or unqualified attributes, including zero, appearing on the detail element. The namespace of qualified attributes can be anything other than "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/".

    Is there any other restrictions like this? Please clarify.