I think I understand your point of view, but I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to swallow all errors and replace them by faults. Could that be done using a specific marshaler ?
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 13:24, rgavlin <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have a flow jms:consumer -> camel:errorHandler ->(robust-in-only)-> > eip:pipeline(jms:provider transformer) -> file:sender. > > When the in-out jms:provider times out, it returns a JBI Error with an > IllegalStateException. This is a "somewhat" expected condition in our > environment which we catch and retry with an smx-camel errorHandler. We > would like the smx-jms:provider to return a JBI Fault instead of an Error in > this circumstance so that the SMX Log remains clean and only includes Errors > when true Error Conditions occur. If we are successful on say a third > errorhandler-initiated retry, we don't want errors appearing in the logs for > the first two unsuccessful attempts. > > Does it make sense to have JBI Faults represent retryable "checked > exceptions" and Errors represent more non-retryable "runtime exceptions". In > this case, JBI Faults would only appear as Errors in the SMX logs if > "in-only" rather than "robust-in-only" MEPs were used. Does that make sense? > Do you have any thoughts? > > /Ron > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/JMS-in-out-provider-timeout---fault-vs.-error-tp21871482p21871482.html > Sent from the ServiceMix - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
