[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-644?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14114136#comment-14114136
]
Venkatesh Seetharam commented on FALCON-644:
--------------------------------------------
bq. Looks like it was changed recently.
This has been like this since 2012 and the hash for this change is:
{noformat}
commit 4602184f24f9cbf2c8777782774cfa5050afa1ce
Author: Shaik Idris <[email protected]>
Date: Wed Mar 7 19:27:43 2012 +0530
{noformat}
Anyways, thanks to [~sowmyaramesh] for catching this. Will be fixed.
As to [~sriksun]'s comments on extension points, I'm not sure if this is a good
idea. We can shoot ourselves in the foot, no? We get isolation as compared to
using the org.apache.falcon.workflow.WorkflowExecutionListener interface with
0.6.
Let me create a jira for these extension points so we don't drop it.
> Don't mask errors in Falcon message producer used in the workflow to send a
> message to the queue/topic
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FALCON-644
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-644
> Project: Falcon
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: messaging
> Reporter: Sowmya Ramesh
>
> In JMSMessageProducer all the exceptions are caught and success is returned
> [return 0] by default. Oozie will indicate that this WF action was successful
> as Falcon Messaging returns success.
> WF shouldn't be failed if post-processing fails but instead of masking errors
> this can be controlled in the WF decision on failure.
> {noformat}
> <action name='succeeded-post-processing'>
> ...
> <ok to="end"/>
> <!-- Shouldn't fail the WF if post processing fails -->
> <error to="end"/>
> </action>
> {noformat}
> Thoughts?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
