Hi Uwe

1. To increase timeout for response you need to set property mex.timeout=300000.
You can find more information on
http://ode.apache.org/endpoint-configuration.html.
2. Try set attribute exitOnStandardFault="yes" in process node
    <bpel:process name="xxxx"
         targetNamespace="xxx"
         xmlns:tns="xxx"
         xmlns:bpel="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/process/executable";
         expressionLanguage="urn:oasis:names:tc:wsbpel:2.0:sublang:xpath2.0"
         queryLanguage="urn:oasis:names:tc:wsbpel:2.0:sublang:xpath2.0"
         exitOnStandardFault="yes"
         >

Rafal



On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Uwe Bachmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while browsing for timeout handling in ODE I did not find a solution for the 
> following case.
>
> Take a sequence: Receive - Assign - Invoke - Assign - Reply
>
> The Invoke returns a response that is used to prepare the reply variable. 
> Assume everything is up and running and responding properly. A timeout of 60 
> seconds is configured for the sequence to return to the calling WebService.
> What if the Invoke activity takes longer to process than 60 seconds?
> The timeout of the sequence hits and the caller is getting informed of the 
> timeout by a SOAP fault.
>
> When I simulated this case by delaying the Invoke response inside the called 
> WebService method I found the following situation:
> - After the Invoke finally returns the second Assign reads an empty variable 
> and prepares the variable for the Reply. The Reply is executed seemingly 
> successful.
> - In the log output an exception in 
> org.apache.servicemix.http.processors.ConsumerProcessor.process (HTTP request 
> has timed out) can be seen.
> - The process instance is never informed of the failure. The setting of 
> faultOnFailure and/or installing fault handlers inside the Invoke or for the 
> surrounding scope don't help setting the process instance to failed state.
>
> Does anybody know if there is a way to handle this case properly?
>
> Any help is appreciated.
>
> Uwe
>
>
>

Reply via email to