Hi Yeah that is a good point. But then I guess we should expose some better way of defining this in the route, so it's not "a hidden feature". Any suggestions for a good DSL type name?
It could be some kind of configuration on either: - the TX policy - the dead letter channel itself And what should the default value be? And I should be documented in the wiki. On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:29 AM, radisb <rad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Some posters have noticed that you can take advantage of deadLetter and have > transactions by not attaching the policy to the route. I tried it and it is > really good... I think this behaviour should be reincarnated as an official > feature. > > You guys are great. You ve literally earned the right to say 'this is not a > bug, it is a feature', and not kidding. This feature maybe ultimately > derives from the fact that the modeling of the whole framework is based on > rational concepts. > > keep up the good work. You ve no idea how many hours of reinventing you ve > saved me. Oh and kudos to the spring guys too. > > BTW, how can I donate? Nothing serious just worth of a round of beers... I > wish I could contribute more. > Sorry for being sentimental but I just got out of a serious dead end in time > thanks to this project. > > Bill. > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Please-keep-this-unintended-feature-in-camel-and-other-requests-tp21025627s22882p21025627.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- /Claus Ibsen Apache Camel Committer Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
