David,
It is a setRollBackOnly, kind of like this:
20 Oct 06 18:42:55[ TransactionUtil.java:247:INFO ]
[TransactionUtil.setRollbackOnly] transaction roll back only set
20 Oct 06 18:42:55[ ServiceDispatcher.java:381:ERROR]
---- exception report
----------------------------------------------------------
Could not commit transaction
Exception: org.ofbiz.entity.transaction.GenericTransactionException
Message: Roll back error, could not commit transaction, was rolled
back instead (null)
---- stack trace
---------------------------------------------------------------
org.ofbiz.entity.transaction.GenericTransactionException: Roll back
error, could not commit transaction, was rolled back instead (null)
org.ofbiz.entity.transaction.TransactionUtil.commit
(TransactionUtil.java:177)
org.ofbiz.entity.transaction.TransactionUtil.commit
(TransactionUtil.java:152)
However, then the service which is catching it will also throw a
service exception:
Service [xxx] threw an unexpected exception/error
Exception: org.ofbiz.service.GenericServiceException
Message: Commit transaction failed
---- stack trace
---------------------------------------------------------------
org.ofbiz.service.GenericServiceException: Commit transaction failed
org.ofbiz.service.ServiceDispatcher.runSync(ServiceDispatcher.java:382)
org.ofbiz.service.ServiceDispatcher.runSync(ServiceDispatcher.java:194)
org.ofbiz.service.GenericDispatcher.runSync(GenericDispatcher.java:122)
so the net result is that even if the first service is set to use-
transaction="false" and the second one is specifically designed just
to log an error, it still fails.
On Oct 20, 2006, at 3:28 PM, David E Jones wrote:
A rollback, or a setRollbackOnly?
-David
On Oct 20, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Si Chen wrote:
Has anybody noticed this? It seems sometimes when use-
transaction="false" we're still getting a rollback when a service
returns an error.
Si
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best Regards,
Si
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
