inovaovao
12 years agoNew Contributor
Sending non-SOAP JMS messages
SoapUI is a great tool for SOAP web service testing, but in the case of JMS one often wants to send plain XML (such as in the case of OAGIS messages) so there isn't a WSDL file.
I managed to take a valid WSDL and strip it down as much as possible to a DummyService so that soapUI still considers it valid and it has only one operation. I could then this as a basis for sending whatever JMS message I wish by configuring a session in hermesJMS and adding JMS endpoints to the DummyService. Of course I needed to disable all SOAP validations.
I'd like to share this WSDL with the community and see if you see any ways to improve it:
I'm pretty sure that it should be possible to simplify this a little bit further, although I've got no idea how.
I managed to take a valid WSDL and strip it down as much as possible to a DummyService so that soapUI still considers it valid and it has only one operation. I could then this as a basis for sending whatever JMS message I wish by configuring a session in hermesJMS and adding JMS endpoints to the DummyService. Of course I needed to disable all SOAP validations.
I'd like to share this WSDL with the community and see if you see any ways to improve it:
<wsdl:definitions targetNamespace="http://www.mydomain.com/oagis/wsdl/" xmlns:wsdl="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/" xmlns:tns="http://www.mydomain.com/oagis/wsdl/">
<wsdl:message name="SendJMSMessageIn">
<wsdl:part name="parameters"/>
</wsdl:message>
<wsdl:message name="SendJMSMessageOut">
<wsdl:part name="parameters"/>
</wsdl:message>
<wsdl:portType name="DummyService">
<wsdl:operation name="SendJMSMessage">
<wsdl:input message="tns:SendJMSMessageIn"/>
<wsdl:output message="tns:SendJMSMessageOut"/>
</wsdl:operation>
</wsdl:portType>
<wsdl:binding name="DummyService" type="tns:DummyService">
<wsdl:operation name="SendJMSMessage"/>
</wsdl:binding>
<wsdl:service name="IPLService">
<wsdl:port name="DummyService" binding="tns:DummyService"/>
</wsdl:service>
</wsdl:definitions>
I'm pretty sure that it should be possible to simplify this a little bit further, although I've got no idea how.