[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-316?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=45875#action_45875
]
Jonathan Anstey commented on CAMEL-316:
---------------------------------------
bq. 3. faults are of type exception and have the fault header
+1 - I think it may just be confusing to the user if you can have any object be
a fault. So, having the mandatory Exception type would be good. The fault
header would be needed too I think since there wouldn't be another way of
determining whether an output was a fault or not.
The rest of the proposal sounds good to me.
> Merge Fault and Exception semantics
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: CAMEL-316
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-316
> Project: Apache Camel
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Hadrian Zbarcea
> Assignee: Hadrian Zbarcea
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>
> The fact that there are output/fault/exception could be confusing and clutter
> the dsl, especially for components where there is no distinction between
> fault and exception. We should merge the two and simplify the model.
> See nabble thread:
> http://www.nabble.com/in-out-fault-messages-discussion-to14170013s22882.html#a14170013
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
