camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bung_ho <>
Subject Re: how to break out of a batch?
Date Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:52:14 GMT
Claus Ibsen-2 wrote
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM, bung_ho &lt;

> bung_ho@

> &gt; wrote:
>> Thanks, but are you sure end() is being used to end the route there? It's
>> not
>> clear to me and I can't find any more documentation on end() anywhere. I
>> saw
>> this other example and it doesn't look like it's being used to end the
>> route
>> prematurely the way I'd like to. Note that in the XML version, there is
>> no
>> such "end" tag.
>> I'd like to try it but I can't find any equivalent way to do it in XML,
>> which is what we are using.
> I think he refers to 
> <stop/>
> . Which will stop continue routing an exchange.
> About the end, then its only available in Java DSL, because you need
> it in situations to denote an endpoint ro an eip.
> For example in XML you have
> <split>
>   ...
>   ...
> </split>
> And where 
> </split>
>  marks the end of the split. In Java you can use
> .end() for that instead
> split()
>   ...
>   ...
> .end()

Thanks Claus, that makes sense.

I did read about doing stop() or stopRoute() but it seems that it is not
advisable to do so from within the route itself, and that it is suggested to
instead use a different route that calls stopRoute on the route I want to
stop. However this becomes an asynchronous operation -- but I want to make
sure that the route doesn't continue even 1 step on the other files, from
the moment of the exception. It seems that stopping the route asynchronously
from another route wouldn't guarantee this.

Instead, I came up with a crude workaround. What I did was to use a bean to
carry a static flag (actually a Hashtable of flags, containing a status for
each different route). If one file fails processing, it sets the flag to an
error condition. Then each subsequent iteration of the route (i.e., each
run-thru for subsequent files in the batch) would check this flag and act
accordingly (continue processing or not). Admittedly it is crude but it
serves my purposes and since the route should only be run by one thread at
any given time, seems reasonably safe to me.

Is there a better way to do what I'm trying to do? (I also tried to use
Exchange properties and even ThreadLocal variables instead of the static
flag, but those get reset for each run-thru of the route).


View this message in context:
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at

View raw message