Which two approaches are valid when using dynamic partner links in a BPEL process?

Question

Options

• AA WSDL file, which contains multiple services that use the same portType, is available at design
• BWhen the BPEL process is designed, the endpoint URL of the WSDL file is known but the
• CWhen the BPEL process is designed, the services and port types of the WSDL file are known but
• DA WSDL file, which contains multiple services that use different portTypes, is available at design

• A
  75% (21)
• B
  18% (5)
• D
  7% (2)

Explanation

A (not D): How To Create a Dynamic Partner Link at Design Time for Use at Runtime To create a dynamic partner link at design time for use at runtime: C (not B): The BPEL specification mandates that only the partner endpoint reference (EPR) can be changed dynamically. In BPEL terms, only the partnerRole of a partner link element can have a new value assigned. The myRole value doesn't change after the BPEL has been deployed. * Dynamic Partner Links and Dynamic Addressing During the design-time of an application, you may need to configure certain services whose endpoints (addresses) are not known beforehand, or it may be necessary to change an endpoint dynamically assign an endpoint reference to the partner link. This means that you can use one partner link for subsequent calls to different web-services (provided that the services use the same interface). * For successful deployment of the process, a partner link should be completely defined. When you deploy the project, the WSDL file for the partner link should contain and define both the abstract and the concrete information for the partner link, including address and port, though later the concrete information can be changed independently from the WSDL file.

No community discussion yet for this question.