> #1-3 are correct, for #4, with the fault removed (or converted to an exception), the exception pipeline > will not be short-circuited...
>From what I can see that doesn't seem to be true. As I said below I can make the use case work as intendedby shoving the exception into an exchange property. If I let the processor convert the fault into an exception with setException (like HandleFault does) the route is short-circuited. >> What does work is inserting a processor first thing in the onException >> route that removes the fault and >> instead of calling setException puts the fault into the exchange under >> the EXCEPTION_CAUGHT property. >> It would be nice if that effect was possible with "handled" without lots >> of manual intervention. -- View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Does-onException-not-support-multiple-statements-tp4381958p4390795.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
