Your transaction isn't rolling back if you "handle" the exception, is it?
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:21 PM, gramanero <graman...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have tested the case of using a route specific onException clause within a > transaction and it appears to work as I would expect (or hope). So I have a > route that is transactional and the final endpoint in the route throws an > exception I forced my restful service to just throw an exception). Without > the onException clause the message lands back in the queue as you would > expect due to it running within a transaction. With the onException clause, > I look for specific exceptions and if it is one of the exceptions that I > have specified I tell tell Camel that the exception has been "handled" (via > the handled clause) and I route the message to the dead letter queue, thus > moving the "bad message" out of the way of the messages remaining on the > queue. I think the key here is the use of the "handled" clause that tells > Camel that the message has been handled and therefore to NOT rollback the > transaction. The alternative choice is to tell Camel to "continue" on with > its normal processing which would have rolled back the transaction and put > the message back onto the queue (via the "continue" clause...at least I > think it is a clause). > > Hope that helps. > > -- > View this message in context: > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Transacted-vs-DeadLetterQueue-tp5713992p5714139.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
