It depends... ;-)
Camel relays on SpringPlatformTransactionManager which is bound to the
current thread,
If you use the "direct" protocol/component, this will be part of this
transaction. If you use the "seda" or "vm" protocol/component (which will
use a different thread), the route in your context component will not be
part of this transaction.
from("vm:in").transacted().to(...).to("vm:out"); make no sense, because the
"vm" component doesn't support transactions, unless your to(...) talks to a
transacted resource.
Best,
Christian
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:38 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote:
> We are planning to write a bunch of camel contexts which contain
> routes using only local endpoints (the vm component). To get everyone
> talking to one another, we'll create a "wiring" context which connects
> the dots. I was wondering how this will work with transactions.
> Suppose I have a few routes like this...
>
> In "wiring" context:
>
> from("jms:queue:inputQueue").transacted().to("context:a:in");
> from("context:a:out").transacted().to("jms:queue:outputQueue");
>
> In context "a":
>
> from("vm:in").transacted().to(...).to("vm:out");
>
>
> I assume the transaction won't span through the route in context "a",
> correct? What happens here? Let's say there's some failure in the
> "..." part of my route with a database or something. The original
> message won't go back onto the "inputQueue" will it? My understanding
> is that the transacted() part will start a transaction once the route
> begins and try to commit it when the route ends.
>
