Hi Ranx,
After giving it more thoughts, I think your suggestion of throwing exception is a neat solution. Using a route level OnException to catch and handle the exception, then quietly return to the caller of the direct route. I will give it a try. But there are situations where I need to disable error-handling at route level - for example, to force the retry to start in the parent route. So the throwing exception approach might not work for those situations. Thanks for the example on processor chain. I will play with it. Thanks! From: Ranx [via Camel] [mailto:ml-node+s465427n5781523...@n5.nabble.com] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:53 PM To: bocamel <johnz...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: How to return early from a direct: subroute? Is there a reason you don't want to throw an exception? If you have multiple processors in a row like that all of which might throw exceptions that certainly seems reasonable. The other possibility here is to inject your processors into one another in a chain of responsibility. I usually use a chain of Pojos if I need that but it would be similar. Don't copy this as I'm writing it in plain text after a long day flying and it's not coming out of an IDE. Plus I never use Processors/Exchanges and use blueprint so don't know if the XML would match what you're after. But you get the idea. public class MyProcessor implements Processor { Processor nextProcessor; //put in getters/setters public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception { // do something... //if logic is correct then call next processor otherwise return. nextProcessor.process(exchange); } } <bean id="processorChain" class="my.first.Processor"> <property name="nextProcessor" ref="secondProcessor"/> </bean> etc. <route> <from uri="direct:in"> <bean ref="processorChain"/> </route> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:09 PM, bocamel <[hidden email]> wrote: > Thank you all very much for responding to my question and for offering > solutions. I have implemented my application using a combination of > headers > and <choice>. But I also concluded that there is not a simple and elegant > way to do what I intended to do. I wish the great Camel team will add such > a feature in a future release. > > <feature request> > > Add a new property header in Exchange: ROUTE_RETURN > > When processing an exchange in a direct route, if this property is true, > then Camel will stop propagating this exchange through the rest of the > direct route and return the exchange back to the caller of the direct > route. > It is the responsibility of the user who sets this property to set the > camel > message body/headers so that the caller of the direct route can continue to > process it. > > The exception/error handling can stay the same, i.e. they do not need to > check this property. > > </feature request> > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/How-to-return-early-from-a-direct-subroute -tp5780262p5781499.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _____ If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/How-to-return-early-from-a-direct-subroute -tp5780262p5781523.html To unsubscribe from How to return early from a direct: subroute?, click here <http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscrib e_by_code&node=5780262&code=am9obnp5aW5AZ21haWwuY29tfDU3ODAyNjJ8Mjk3Mjc3MTQ4 > . <http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_view er&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNa mespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.No deNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_ema ils%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml> NAML -- View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/How-to-return-early-from-a-direct-subroute-tp5780262p5781560.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
