What are you trying to do? -David
On Dec 13, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > Okay thanks David, it just makes testing failure scenarios a bit of a pain > using simple methods, you have to set break-on-error to false, > require-new-transaction to true and then you also have to clear the > responseMessage and errorMessageList after the service call. But if that the > way it's supposed to be then so be it. > > Thanks > Scott > > On 13/12/2009, at 3:45 PM, David E Jones wrote: > >> >> Yes, that's correct, it does not undo the error, it simply keeps it from >> interrupting the flow so you can do other things. >> >> If you want to "undo" the error, or have it be independent, then technically >> it needs to run in its own transaction in addition to doing something to no >> pass the error up the stack. >> >> -David >> >> >> On Dec 11, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >> >>> I'm trying to use call-service's break-on-error="false" attribute but my >>> simple method still returns an error at the end of the method, so >>> break-on-error="false" seems to just delay the error instead of breaking >>> straight away on the service call. This happens because the service call >>> errors end up in the method context which is checked to determine the >>> success of the simple method. I'm doubting this is the desired behavior >>> because unless your simple method isn't wrapped in a transaction everything >>> is going to get rolled back anyway regardless of the break-on-error setting. >>> >>> Can anyone confirm or deny? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Scott >>> >>> HotWax Media >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>> >> >
