You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@camel.apache.org by Mark Borner <ma...@zurich.com.au> on 2010/11/18 06:15:28 UTC
Multicast() Behaviour with Exceptions
Hello all:
Can someone help me with the behaviour of multicast() when exceptions are
thrown? I've attached a unit test & Spring context to outline my
question.
What I'm expecting is that all unit tests pass. What I'm experiencing is
that unit test "end1FailureTest" doesn't pass. And I don't understand
why. Why would the behaviour be different if the first endpoint of a
multicast() throws an exception versus the second?
I've executed the unit test under Camel 2.4 and 2.5 with the same results.
Any help is appreciated!
Mark
Mark Borner
Java Developer - ZStream Xpress
----
This email is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain
information which is confidential, commercially sensitive, or
copyright. If you are not the intended recipient you must not
reproduce or distribute any part of the email, disclose its contents,
or take any action in reliance. If you have received this email in
error, please contact the sender and delete the message. It is your
responsibility to scan this email and any attachments for viruses and
other defects. To the extent permitted by law, Zurich and its
associates will not be liable for any loss or damage arising in any
way from this communication including any file attachments. We may
monitor email you send to us, either as a reply to this email or any
email you send to us, to confirm our systems are protected and for
compliance with company policies. Although we take reasonable
precautions to protect the confidentiality of our email systems, we
do not warrant the confidentiality or security of email or
attachments we receive.
Re: Multicast() Behaviour with Exceptions
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
Hi
The issue has now been fixed on trunk.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thanks for raising this issue. It looks like a bug in the multicast logic
> when having exceptions handled by onException as well.
> If you dont have the onException it should work.
>
> A workaround is to fix the UseLatestAggregationStrategy to ensure the
> exception is propagated as well.
>
> I have raised a ticket
> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-3352
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Mark Borner <ma...@zurich.com.au>wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello all:
>>
>> Can someone help me with the behaviour of multicast() when exceptions are
>> thrown? I've attached a unit test & Spring context to outline my question.
>>
>> What I'm expecting is that all unit tests pass. What I'm experiencing is
>> that unit test "end1FailureTest" doesn't pass. And I don't understand why.
>> Why would the behaviour be different if the first endpoint of a multicast()
>> throws an exception versus the second?
>>
>> I've executed the unit test under Camel 2.4 and 2.5 with the same results.
>>
>> Any help is appreciated!
>> Mark
>>
>> Mark Borner
>> Java Developer - ZStream Xpress
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> This email is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain
>> information which is confidential, commercially sensitive, or
>> copyright. If you are not the intended recipient you must not
>> reproduce or distribute any part of the email, disclose its contents,
>> or take any action in reliance. If you have received this email in
>> error, please contact the sender and delete the message. It is your
>> responsibility to scan this email and any attachments for viruses and
>> other defects. To the extent permitted by law, Zurich and its
>> associates will not be liable for any loss or damage arising in any
>> way from this communication including any file attachments. We may
>> monitor email you send to us, either as a reply to this email or any
>> email you send to us, to confirm our systems are protected and for
>> compliance with company policies. Although we take reasonable
>> precautions to protect the confidentiality of our email systems, we
>> do not warrant the confidentiality or security of email or
>> attachments we receive.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> FuseSource
> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Twitter: davsclaus
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
>
>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
Re: Multicast() Behaviour with Exceptions
Posted by Mark Borner <ma...@zurich.com.au>.
Thanks Claus!
Mark
Mark Borner
Java Developer - ZStream Xpress
From:
Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
To:
users@camel.apache.org
Date:
23/11/2010 01:00 AM
Subject:
Re: Multicast() Behaviour with Exceptions
Hi
Thanks for raising this issue. It looks like a bug in the multicast logic
when having exceptions handled by onException as well.
If you dont have the onException it should work.
A workaround is to fix the UseLatestAggregationStrategy to ensure the
exception is propagated as well.
I have raised a ticket
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-3352
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Mark Borner <ma...@zurich.com.au>
wrote:
Hello all:
Can someone help me with the behaviour of multicast() when exceptions are
thrown? I've attached a unit test & Spring context to outline my
question.
What I'm expecting is that all unit tests pass. What I'm experiencing is
that unit test "end1FailureTest" doesn't pass. And I don't understand
why. Why would the behaviour be different if the first endpoint of a
multicast() throws an exception versus the second?
I've executed the unit test under Camel 2.4 and 2.5 with the same results.
Any help is appreciated!
Mark
Mark Borner
Java Developer - ZStream Xpress
----
This email is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain
information which is confidential, commercially sensitive, or
copyright. If you are not the intended recipient you must not
reproduce or distribute any part of the email, disclose its contents,
or take any action in reliance. If you have received this email in
error, please contact the sender and delete the message. It is your
responsibility to scan this email and any attachments for viruses and
other defects. To the extent permitted by law, Zurich and its
associates will not be liable for any loss or damage arising in any
way from this communication including any file attachments. We may
monitor email you send to us, either as a reply to this email or any
email you send to us, to confirm our systems are protected and for
compliance with company policies. Although we take reasonable
precautions to protect the confidentiality of our email systems, we
do not warrant the confidentiality or security of email or
attachments we receive.
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
----
This email is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain
information which is confidential, commercially sensitive, or
copyright. If you are not the intended recipient you must not
reproduce or distribute any part of the email, disclose its contents,
or take any action in reliance. If you have received this email in
error, please contact the sender and delete the message. It is your
responsibility to scan this email and any attachments for viruses and
other defects. To the extent permitted by law, Zurich and its
associates will not be liable for any loss or damage arising in any
way from this communication including any file attachments. We may
monitor email you send to us, either as a reply to this email or any
email you send to us, to confirm our systems are protected and for
compliance with company policies. Although we take reasonable
precautions to protect the confidentiality of our email systems, we
do not warrant the confidentiality or security of email or
attachments we receive.
Re: Multicast() Behaviour with Exceptions
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
Hi
Thanks for raising this issue. It looks like a bug in the multicast logic
when having exceptions handled by onException as well.
If you dont have the onException it should work.
A workaround is to fix the UseLatestAggregationStrategy to ensure the
exception is propagated as well.
I have raised a ticket
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-3352
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Mark Borner <ma...@zurich.com.au>wrote:
>
> Hello all:
>
> Can someone help me with the behaviour of multicast() when exceptions are
> thrown? I've attached a unit test & Spring context to outline my question.
>
> What I'm expecting is that all unit tests pass. What I'm experiencing is
> that unit test "end1FailureTest" doesn't pass. And I don't understand why.
> Why would the behaviour be different if the first endpoint of a multicast()
> throws an exception versus the second?
>
> I've executed the unit test under Camel 2.4 and 2.5 with the same results.
>
> Any help is appreciated!
> Mark
>
> Mark Borner
> Java Developer - ZStream Xpress
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> This email is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain
> information which is confidential, commercially sensitive, or
> copyright. If you are not the intended recipient you must not
> reproduce or distribute any part of the email, disclose its contents,
> or take any action in reliance. If you have received this email in
> error, please contact the sender and delete the message. It is your
> responsibility to scan this email and any attachments for viruses and
> other defects. To the extent permitted by law, Zurich and its
> associates will not be liable for any loss or damage arising in any
> way from this communication including any file attachments. We may
> monitor email you send to us, either as a reply to this email or any
> email you send to us, to confirm our systems are protected and for
> compliance with company policies. Although we take reasonable
> precautions to protect the confidentiality of our email systems, we
> do not warrant the confidentiality or security of email or
> attachments we receive.
>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/