camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <jcar...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: Transacted vs DeadLetterQueue
Date Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:01:52 GMT
Won't the dlc "put" be in the transaction too?  That would rollback too,
thus nothing ever happened.
On Jun 8, 2012 6:56 AM, "James Carman" <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:

> Try it with client cache control.  Take a look at my example.
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:47 AM, gramanero <gramanero@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, it is not rolling back if you use the Handles element with a
> constant value of true. If you use the Continue element then I believe it
> will roll back.
> >
> > Sent from my iPod
> >
> > On Jun 7, 2012, at 11:46 PM, "James Carman [via Camel]" <
> ml-node+s465427n5714151h57@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Your transaction isn't rolling back if you "handle" the exception, is
> it?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:21 PM, gramanero <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have tested the case of using a route specific onException clause
> within a
> >> > transaction and it appears to work as I would expect (or hope). So I
> have a
> >> > route that is transactional and the final endpoint in the route
> throws an
> >> > exception I forced my restful service to just throw an exception).
> Without
> >> > the onException clause the message lands back in the queue as you
> would
> >> > expect due to it running within a transaction. With the onException
> clause,
> >> > I look for specific exceptions and if it is one of the exceptions
> that I
> >> > have specified I tell tell Camel that the exception has been
> "handled" (via
> >> > the handled clause) and I route the message to the dead letter queue,
> thus
> >> > moving the "bad message" out of the way of the messages remaining on
> the
> >> > queue. I think the key here is the use of the "handled" clause that
> tells
> >> > Camel that the message has been handled and therefore to NOT rollback
> the
> >> > transaction. The alternative choice is to tell Camel to "continue" on
> with
> >> > its normal processing which would have rolled back the transaction
> and put
> >> > the message back onto the queue (via the "continue" clause...at least
> I
> >> > think it is a clause).
> >> >
> >> > Hope that helps.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > View this message in context:
> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Transacted-vs-DeadLetterQueue-tp5713992p5714139.html
> >> > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the
> discussion below:
> >>
> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Transacted-vs-DeadLetterQueue-tp5713992p5714151.html
> >> To unsubscribe from Transacted vs DeadLetterQueue, click here.
> >> NAML
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Transacted-vs-DeadLetterQueue-tp5713992p5714179.html
> > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message