Though both options provided by Scott are correct, <check-errors/> is
a common practice, you can find many examples of both.
Regards
Sumit Pandit.
On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:15 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
The presence of error messages doesn't cause the service to return
an error, you have to do it explicitly with:
<check-errors/>
or
<return response-code="error"/>
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 17/07/2009, at 1:35 AM, snowch wrote:
How can I get svcB to return error and to return failure? In svcB
I am using
the following to add an error, but it appears that is not causing
svcA to
rollback...
<add-error><fail-message message="..."/></add-error>
Scott Gray-2 wrote:
It depends on what you mean by fail:
If svcB triggers a rollback then by default svcA will rollback, see
the require-new-transaction attribute
If svcB returns failure then svcA won't roll back
If svcB returns error then svcA will rollback by default, see the
break-on-error attribute
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 17/07/2009, at 12:53 AM, snowch wrote:
If have a service (e.g. svcA) that calls another service (e.g.
svcB)
as per
the pseudo code:
svcA:
1. lookup entity
2. modify entity
3. store entity
4. call svcB
5. return
If svcB fails, does step 3 rollback?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/minilang-transactions-
tp24515741p24515741.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/minilang-transactions-tp24515741p24516505.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
