Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location PL
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Oracle Exam 1Z0-434 Topic 8 Question 63 Discussion

Actual exam question for Oracle's 1Z0-434 exam
Question #: 63
Topic #: 8
[All 1Z0-434 Questions]

You have modeled a composite with an inbound adapter service wired to a BPEL process component.

Which method do you use to model a rejection handler for the inbound adapter service?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

by Cecilia at Nov 22, 2023, 04:32 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 1Z0-434 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Dorthy
2 months ago
All these options sound pretty serious. I'm just hoping the exam doesn't ask us to define a 'rejection-handler' for something like a bad hair day. That would be a real head-scratcher!
upvoted 0 times
...
Victor
2 months ago
Option C is the one for me. Handling the rejection in a top-level catch block in the BPEL process is more explicit and gives me more control over the exception handling logic.
upvoted 0 times
Kimi
6 days ago
Definitely, having it in the BPEL process makes it easier to manage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Taryn
9 days ago
That's a good choice. It does give you more control over the exception handling.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lauran
29 days ago
C) Define the rejection-handler logic in a top-level catch block in the BPEL process where the QName of the fault should be bpws:rejectedMessages.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Leatha
2 months ago
I'm leaning towards option D. Defining the rejection-handler logic in fault-policies.xml and associating it with the composite seems like a more centralized and maintainable approach.
upvoted 0 times
Edda
28 days ago
I agree, having it in fault-policies.xml for the composite seems like a more organized approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cornell
29 days ago
Option D sounds like a good choice. It would keep the rejection-handler logic centralized.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorean
1 months ago
I agree, having the rejection-handler logic in fault-policies.xml for the composite seems like a good approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Winfred
1 months ago
I think option D is the way to go. It's more centralized and easier to maintain.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jerrod
2 months ago
I'm not sure, but I think A could also be a valid option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rebbecca
2 months ago
I think option B is the way to go here. Defining the rejection-handler logic inline as a child element of the section of the inbound adapter in composite.xml just seems like the most straightforward approach.
upvoted 0 times
Tom
21 days ago
User 4: Option B does seem straightforward, let's go with that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rachael
22 days ago
User 3: I'm not sure, maybe option A is better?
upvoted 0 times
...
Mica
1 months ago
User 2: I agree, defining the rejection-handler logic inline in composite.xml seems simple.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jules
2 months ago
User 1: I think option B is the way to go here.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Kris
2 months ago
I disagree, I believe it's C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carissa
3 months ago
I think the correct method is B.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77