Hide Forgot
project_key: SOA When a BPEL process is published into jUDDI then the following accessPoint is used: {code:xml} <org.uddi.api_v3.BindingTemplate serviceKey="uddi:riftsaw.jboss.org:service_uddiregservice" bindingKey="uddi:riftsaw.jboss.org:binding_127.0.0.1-8080_uddiregservice_uddiregport" xmlns:ns2="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:ns3="urn:uddi-org:api_v3"> <ns3:description xml:lang="en:">BPEL Endpoint deployed by Riftsaw</ns3:description> <ns3:accessPoint useType="endPoint">http://127.0.0.1:8080//Quickstart_bpel_uddi_registration</ns3:accessPoint> <ns3:tModelInstanceDetails> <ns3:tModelInstanceInfo tModelKey="uddi:riftsaw.jboss.org:UddiRegSoapBinding"> <ns3:description xml:lang="en:">The wsdl:binding that this wsdl:port implements. BPEL Endpoint deployed by Riftsaw The instanceParms specifies the port local name.</ns3:description> <ns3:instanceDetails> <ns3:instanceParms>UddiRegPort</ns3:instanceParms> </ns3:instanceDetails> </ns3:tModelInstanceInfo> <ns3:tModelInstanceInfo tModelKey="uddi:riftsaw.jboss.org:UddiRegPortType"> <ns3:description xml:lang="en:">The wsdl:portType that this wsdl:port implements.</ns3:description> </ns3:tModelInstanceInfo> <ns3:tModelInstanceInfo tModelKey="uddi:riftsaw.jboss.org:UddiRegServiceProcess"> <ns3:description xml:lang="en:">The bpel:process this wsdl:port supports.BPEL Service deployed by Riftsaw</ns3:description> </ns3:tModelInstanceInfo> </ns3:tModelInstanceDetails> </org.uddi.api_v3.BindingTemplate> {code} The accessPoint tag should have this value instead: http://127.0.0.1:8080/Quickstart_bpel_uddi_registration?wsdl
Attached process.
Attachment: Added: Quickstart_bpel_uddi_registration-1.jar
We are using a useType="endPoint" which means the actual endpoint. A useType="wsdlDeployment" would point to the wsdl URL. We are now following this technote: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/tn/uddi-spec-tc-tn-bpel-20040725.htm#_Toc78091139 (I am working on full documention on that which is almost complete). So I think we can close this one as invalid? Or are there any other concerns?
Candidate for SOA 5.2. It has to be fixed by Sept 30 or it's out.
It's not a bug..
Thanks for the specification URL. Reject the issue please.
Temporarily reopening for release note status.
Release Notes Docs Status: Added: Not Required Writer: Added: dlesage