|
Karthick,
Nope, I'm curious about v2 compliance and not v3
one.
The reason is that accordingly the OASIS technical
note (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/tn/uddi-spec-tc-tn-wsdl-v202-20040631.htm
please see the "Mapping WSDL 1.1 in UDDI V2" section), one could publish
WSDL artifacts into a UDDI registry in a more flexible manner. That can be done
by mapping entries from a single WSDL into more than one UDDI structure (!). So,
multiple UDDI tModels would be created from a single WSDL file, each covering
some part of the latter.
And it
means that some of tModels should be categorized via so called canonical tModels
that MUST (I guess) present in the UDDI registry.
Stating that such tModels are omitted in jUDDI I mean that they are
omitted in the SQL scripts for jUDDI databases.
So, the approach from OASIS is not applicable for jUDDI.
Right?
Thanks,
Andrew
From: Karthick Sankarachary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 3:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: jUDDI v2 compliance In general, v1/v2
tModel keys are GUID-based, and v3 tModel keys are URI-based. For more
information on mapping between v2 and v3 keys, I refer you to http://uddi.org/pubs/uddi-v3.0.2-20041019.htm#_Toc85908262. So, you probably want
to map your “evolved” keys to the corresponding “uuid” keys, using the algorithm
specified in that spec, and hopefully JUDDI will recognize the types you’re
looking for. If not, you may have to explicitly create those categories from
scratch yourself.
From: Andrei
Kazyrevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi there!
CONFIDENTIALITY
CAUTION AND DISCLAIMER |
Title: jUDDI v2 compliance
- jUDDI v2 compliance Andrei Kazyrevich
- RE: jUDDI v2 compliance Karthick Sankarachary
- RE: jUDDI v2 compliance Andrei Kazyrevich
- RE: jUDDI v2 compliance Karthick Sankarachary
- Re: jUDDI v2 compliance Anne Thomas Manes
- Re: jUDDI v2 compliance Steve Viens
- Re: jUDDI v2 compliance Steve Viens
- Re: jUDDI v2 compliance Steve Viens
- RE: jUDDI v2 compliance Hird Matthew
