02-23-05 01:47 AM
Never mind, got fixed with SP1
"Michel Prévost" <michel.prevost@cactuscommerce.this.is.to.be.removed.com>
wrote in message news:uSPMFyQGFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello
>
> I have an orchestration that loops on a port, and it may happen that an
> error occurs on a loop. When this happens, I would like the orchestration
> to
> log the error and continue on the remaining loops, if any.
>
> The problem I have now, is that when this occurs, the error is logged, but
> by BTS itself, instead of my own error handling mechanism. Furthermore,
> the
> orchestration stops there, without continuing with the remaining loops.
>
>
> The current orchestration uses a SQL adapter port. The first 20 or so
> records are correctly put in the database, but one of them have an error
> in
> date formatting. When the error comes back (the error is provoked because
> I
> accidentally trucate the string representing the date, but this is not the
> point), I want to be able to log the error and keep on with processing the
> other records (I cannot use an updategram, as some of you may suggest,
> because I don't know upfront if a given record is new or already exists in
> the database).
>
> Since the data comes from an external source, there is a possibility that
> there are errors in it. But I want to stop processing on error such as
> "cannot connect to server", for instance.
>
> What I have tried so far, which does not work:
>
> - Make the orchestration's transaction "Long running".
> - Put the Send shape into a scope, with the following properties set:
> - Synchronized: true
> - Transaction Type: Long running
> - The port with SQL adapter:
> - Delivery notification: Transmitted
> - Communication direction: Send-receive
> - Binding: Specify Later
> - Put 3 exception handlers in the scope:
> - Microsoft.XLANGs.BaseTypes.DeliveryFailureException
> - System.Web.Services.SoapException
> - System.Exception
>
> The combination of the settings listed above does not enable me to cacth
> the
> exceptions.
>
> Thank you
> Michel
>
>
[ Post a follow-up to this message ]
|