Hi,
I am trying to implement a transaction in an orchestration.

This is what I have done: -
1. Created a scope of atomic transaction type.
2. I am making a database update using a serviced component. This is being
called from, within the scope.
3. Making a FTP. If there is a problem with the FTP an exception is thrown
and the sql update made earlier should roll back. The send port uses Delever
y
Notification = "Transmitted" to get the notification.

However, even if the FTP fails and an exception is thrown from within the
scope, the SQL update is not rolled back.

Actually my requirement is that I have to put a FTP and a SQL update within
a transaction. This I was trying to do by putting the SQL update first and
then the FTP within a scope.

Can someone tell me how to achieve this?

Thanks and Regards,
Sovon.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

As an option: create an exception handler for your scope and catch the
delivery failure exception.  Then make a call to SQL to roll back the work
you did.

Matt

"Sovon" <Sovon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BB6BB47A-3DE5-4C52-AEA1-035AA641E79A@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am trying to implement a transaction in an orchestration.
>
> This is what I have done: -
> 1. Created a scope of atomic transaction type.
> 2. I am making a database update using a serviced component. This is being
> called from, within the scope.
> 3. Making a FTP. If there is a problem with the FTP an exception is thrown
> and the sql update made earlier should roll back. The send port uses
Delevery
> Notification = "Transmitted" to get the notification.
>
> However, even if the FTP fails and an exception is thrown from within the
> scope, the SQL update is not rolled back.
>
> Actually my requirement is that I have to put a FTP and a SQL update
within
> a transaction. This I was trying to do by putting the SQL update first and
> then the FTP within a scope.
>
> Can someone tell me how to achieve this?
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Sovon.
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Thanks for the reply Matt.

I find that we can't put an exception block in a scope other than if it a
long running transaction.

This restricts me from using an atomic scope for this scenario. However, the
name atomic suggests that in the event of an exception the transactions
should roll back.

Please suggest.

Regards,
Sovon.

"Matt Milner" wrote:

> As an option: create an exception handler for your scope and catch the
> delivery failure exception.  Then make a call to SQL to roll back the work
> you did.
>
> Matt
>
> "Sovon" <Sovon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BB6BB47A-3DE5-4C52-AEA1-035AA641E79A@microsoft.com... 
> Delevery 
> within 
>
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]