Hi Brenneis, Have you ever tried to set "transacted=true" with the incoming queue ? Just like <from uri="jms:queue:queuein?transacted=true/> I think this will use a local transaction with JmsTransactionManager and rollback the message when an exception is thrown.
Hope this is helpful ! On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 12:36 AM Brenneis, Steve < steve.brenn...@theclearinghouse.org> wrote: > Thank you for your answer George. > > We are using the XML DSL. When we try something like this: > > <route id="route 1"> > <from uri="jms:queue:queuein/> > <transacted ref="PROPAGATION_REQUIRES_NEW"/> > <process ref="process1/> > <to uri="direct:nextRoute1/> > </route> > > <route id="route 2> > <from uri="direct:nextRoute1"/> > <transacted ref="PROPAGATION_REQUIRED"/> > <process ref="process2"/> > <to uri="direct:nextRoute2"/> > </route> > > <route id="route 3"> > <from uri="direct:nextRoute2"/> > <transacted ref="PROPAGATION_REQUIRED"/> > <process ref="process3"> > <to ref="jms:queue:queueout/> > </route> > > If process2 throws an exception, we see that the transaction is rolled > back with redelivered = false and the message has disappeared. However, if > process1 throws an exception, the transaction is rolled back with > redelivered = true and the message is back on the incoming queue. > > This is what I meant by a transaction spanning routes. It seems like this > approach should work, but we must be using it wrong. > > -----Original Message----- > From: George Daswani <georgedasw...@hotmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 4:20 PM > To: users@camel.apache.org > Subject: [External] Re: Looking for a transactional solution > > > > WARNING: This message was received from an EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS. > Examine the URL and use caution BEFORE clicking links or opening any > attachments. > Steve, > > The transactional EIP supports crossing multiple routes as long > as each one of those routes are transactionally aware (transaction > demarcation) and your JMS connection factory is configured properly and > set-up to use a transaction manager. I personally use camel under an OSGI > container (karaf & blueprint)) and transaction demarcation stuff works > just fine with the transaction manager that is feature installable with > KARAF > (JTA). If you are using something like spring boot, plenty of JTA > transaction managers available (atomikos, bitronix). The JTA transaction > manager will allow you to read from one type of message broker (e.q. > ActiveMQ) and write to another type of message broker (e.q. IBM MQ) in one > transaction boundary. > > > https://clicktime.symantec.com/3NL8rtk3CaQa9bJreF5FDn7Vc?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcamel.apache.org%2Fcomponents%2F3.4.x%2Feips%2Ftransactional-client.html > > For example. > > <bean id="PROPAGATION_REQUIRED" > class="org.apache.camel.spring.spi.SpringTransactionPolicy"> > <property name="transactionManager" > ref="jmsTransactionManager"/></bean> > <bean id="PROPAGATION_REQUIRES_NEW" > class="org.apache.camel.spring.spi.SpringTransactionPolicy"> > <property name="transactionManager" ref="jmsTransactionManager"/> > <property name="propagationBehaviorName" > value="PROPAGATION_REQUIRES_NEW"/></bean> > > > > from("readFromQueue").transacted("PROPAGATION_REQUIRES_NEW").to("direct:doSomeProcessing").to("writeToQ"); > > from("doSomeProcessing").transacted("PROPAGATION_REQUIRED"); > > from("writeToQ").transacted(PROPAGATION_REQUIRED"); > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:28 PM Brenneis, Steve < > steve.brenn...@theclearinghouse.org> wrote: > > > I hope this is the right place to ask this question. If not, maybe > > someone can direct me to the right place. > > > > I have an application that reads messages from a queue, passes them > > off to a content-based router, which then passes them to various > > validation and transformation routes. At the end of each series of > > routes the transformed, validated messages are placed onto another queue. > > > > The problem to be solved is that the messages must be delivered once > > and only once to the outgoing queue. The solution to this would seem > > to be a queue-to-queue XA transaction, but I can't find anything that > > indicates that a transaction could cross route boundaries. > > > > Is there such a solution available? Thanks for any help with this. > > > > Steve Brenneis > > > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or > > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the > > e-mail and notify us immediately. > > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If > you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and notify us > immediately. >
