MENU
One of your developers was asked to build a Customer Balance service that is able to update a customer's outstanding account balance. Service consumers need to be able to send messages to the service with an element named "updateCustomerBalance" that contains a "newBalance" child element. You are presented with the following WSDL definition:
What's wrong with this WSDL definition?
Suggested Answer: D
Get Premium S90.05 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
31 comments · newest first
TE
Teddy
11 months ago
The missing 'name' attribute is definitely a problem!
MI
Miesha
11 months ago
I think the 'document' style is actually correct.
HE
Heike
11 months ago
Wait, is the prefix really wrong? I thought it was fine.
AL
Alica
11 months ago
Totally agree with that!
WE
Weldon
12 months ago
The 'part' element should have an 'element' attribute instead of the 'type' attribute.
SO
Soledad
12 months ago
I thought the 'xsd:complexType' needing a 'name' attribute was a common mistake in WSDL definitions.
BR
Brittney
1 year ago
This question feels familiar; I think we practiced something similar where the 'style' attribute was a key point.
PA
Paola
1 year ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I think the namespace prefix might be off in this WSDL.
CO
Cordie
1 year ago
I remember something about the 'part' element needing an 'element' attribute for proper message structure.
CA
Carisa
1 year ago
Wait, is the 'xsdxomplexType' element missing a 'name' attribute? I'm not entirely sure about that one. I'll need to review my notes to be confident in my answer.
RO
Rolf
1 year ago
The 'part' element with the 'type' attribute is definitely an issue. I remember from the lectures that it should use the 'element' attribute instead. I'll make sure to mark that as the correct answer.
ST
Stephaine
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused about the 'soap:binding' element's 'style' attribute. I'll need to double-check the SOAP specification to make sure I understand that part correctly.
CR
Cristal
1 year ago
This WSDL definition looks pretty straightforward. I think I can tackle this question without too much trouble.
IR
Irma
1 year ago
Option B is also incorrect. The 'document' value of the 'soap:binding' element's 'style' attribute is actually the correct choice for this scenario.
LA
Lavonna
1 year ago
Haha, the 'xsdxomplexType' element is missing a 'name' attribute? Somebody needs to proofread their WSDL more carefully!
DI
Diane
1 year ago
Yvette: Agreed, a small mistake like that can cause big issues down the line.
YV
Yvette
1 year ago
User 2: They definitely need to fix that before deploying the service.
AL
Alline
1 year ago
User 1: Yeah, that's a pretty big oversight.
YU
Yuonne
1 year ago
I agree with Gilbert. The WSDL definition should use the 'element' attribute to specify the message structure, rather than the 'type' attribute.
AL
Alaine
1 year ago
C) The 'part' element should have an 'element' attribute instead of the 'type' attribute.
NO
Noel
1 year ago
B) The 'document' value of the 'soap:binding' element's 'style' attribute is incorrect.
SA
Sarina
1 year ago
A) The prefix used for one of the namespaces is incorrect.
GI
Gilbert
2 years ago
The correct answer is C. The 'part' element should have an 'element' attribute instead of the 'type' attribute. This is a common issue with WSDL definitions, as the 'element' attribute is more appropriate for defining the message structure.
GE
Georgiann
1 year ago
C) The 'part' element should have an 'element' attribute instead of the 'type' attribute.
AL
Alva
1 year ago
B) The 'document' value of the 'soap:binding' element's 'style' attribute is incorrect.
LI
Lindsey
1 year ago
B: The 'part' element should have an 'element' attribute instead of the 'type' attribute.
RE
Reynalda
1 year ago
A: The prefix used for one of the namespaces is incorrect.
GA
Gary
1 year ago
A) The prefix used for one of the namespaces is incorrect.
CA
Carline
2 years ago
I think the 'xsdxomplexType' element is missing a 'name' attribute.
KE
Kenneth
2 years ago
I agree with Joesph, the 'part' element should have an 'element' attribute.
JO
Joesph
2 years ago
I think the issue is with the 'part' element.