Won't the dlc "put" be in the transaction too? That would rollback too, thus nothing ever happened. On Jun 8, 2012 6:56 AM, "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> Try it with client cache control. Take a look at my example. > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:47 AM, gramanero <graman...@gmail.com> wrote: > > No, it is not rolling back if you use the Handles element with a > constant value of true. If you use the Continue element then I believe it > will roll back. > > > > Sent from my iPod > > > > On Jun 7, 2012, at 11:46 PM, "James Carman [via Camel]" < > ml-node+s465427n5714151...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > > > >> Your transaction isn't rolling back if you "handle" the exception, is > it? > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:21 PM, gramanero <[hidden email]> 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. > >> > >> > >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the > discussion below: > >> > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Transacted-vs-DeadLetterQueue-tp5713992p5714151.html > >> To unsubscribe from Transacted vs DeadLetterQueue, click here. > >> NAML > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Transacted-vs-DeadLetterQueue-tp5713992p5714179.html > > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
