Github user aledsage commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-library/pull/147#discussion_r169175531
--- Diff:
software/webapp/src/main/java/org/apache/brooklyn/entity/proxy/AbstractControllerImpl.java
---
@@ -425,6 +443,20 @@ public void update() {
}
}
+ @Override
+ public void changeServerPool(String groupId) {
+ Group newGroup = (Group)
getManagementContext().getEntityManager().getEntity(groupId);
+ if (newGroup == null) {
+ throw new IllegalArgumentException("Group '"+groupId+"' not
found");
+ }
+
+ config().set(SERVER_POOL, newGroup);
+ if (hasServerPoolMemberTrackingPolicy()) {
--- End diff --
What happens is...
If we don't already have a serverPoolMemberTrackingPolicy (e.g. because we
haven't been started yet), then keep it that way (i.e. don't add one).
In `hasServerPoolMemberTrackingPolicy`, it handles the case where the field
has not been set - it is effectively transient because fields are not persisted
(only attributes, config and adjuncts).
When we then call `addServerPoolMemberTrackingPolicy`, it's into the code I
didn't touch. Agreed that method is a bit weird - it'll remove it if
`serverPoolMemberTrackerPolicy` is not null, but won't if a policy of that type
already exists with the field being null (which presumably could happen on
rebind).
In conclusion, I agree that `addServerPoolMemberTrackingPolicy` is a bit
weird. But I'm ok with the logic behind the code I've changed/added :-)
---
