Willem Jiang wrote:
Willem Jiang wrote:
S. Ali Tokmen wrote:
Hello
On 05/08/2010 05:47, Willem Jiang wrote:
CXF FaultOutInterceptor will take care of it if you just throw the
Fault message out from CxfConsumer.
Well, let's assume the route is configured like:
from("cxf:...")
.process(new FirstProcessor())
.process(new SecondProcessor())
.process(new ThirdProcessor())
In this case, if the first processor is the one to return the fault,
and that it only returns a fault, then the second and third processor
will be executed.
Whereas, if the processor throws the exception (generated by CXF and
containing all @WebFault annotations, remember) then the second and
third processor won't be executed.
Do you think my use case is wrong?
I got it, you don't want to throws the exception in FirstProcessor to
keep the exchange being processed by Second and ThirdProcessor.
I just checked the CxfConsumer code of the camel trunk, it will check
the fault message if the exchange is failed.
So please just set the exchange to be failed, then CxfConsumer will
throw the exception for your.
Just have a second thought, we should let CxfConsumer check if the
exchange out message is the fault message first, if you set the Exchange
to failed, it will trigger the ErrorHandler and the other two processor
will not be processed.
I just wrote a test to verify it[1], if you set the fault message, the
Exchange is failed, and the pipeline will route the exchange to next
processor, and we don't need change any of CxfConsumer codes.
[1]http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=982524&view=rev
Willem
----------------------------------
Apache Camel, Apache CXF committer
Open Source Integration http://www.fusesource.com
Blog http://willemjiang.blogspot.com
Tiwtter http://twitter.com/willemjiang
Cheers
S. Ali Tokmen
[email protected]
Office: +33 4 76 29 76 19
GSM: +33 66 43 00 555
Bull, Architect of an Open World TM
http://www.bull.com
