Thanks, indeed it all works as expected without using rollback().
I had cases of onException().handled(true)....rollback().end() that could be
simplified to onException()....end().
On 31.03.2017 17:10, Quinn Stevenson wrote:
I don’t this this would make sense for handling java.lang.Exception - I think
you’re right about Camel doing the same action by default.
I guess if there was some other exception you were handling (i.e.
handled(true)), you may want to call rollback - but I can’t think of a really
good example right of hand. The place’s I’ve used rollback() (actually
markRollbackOnly() - I’ve never used rollback()) are in routes where something
besides an exception determines whether or not I want to rollback the
transaction.
For what it’s worth ...
On Mar 31, 2017, at 6:18 AM, Martin Lichtin<lich...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
Hi
Wanted to ask, what would be a reason to explicitly call rollback() in an
onException().
For example, would this make sense?
.onException(Exception.class).rollback().end()
I'm under the expression above line could just be left out, as Camel anyway lets
the exception up and that will cause the transaction to roll back.
