By the way, right now if the default controller is fine for your system, you don't actually have to instantiate your own GenericHelixController. HelixManager (when started with instance type CONTROLLER) will do this for you automatically with all the listeners registered.
Kanak ---------------------------------------- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Helix 0.6.2: InstanceConfigChangeListener not implemented by > GenericHelixController > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 21:30:31 -0800 > > Hi Sandeep, > > GenericHelixController implements ConfigChangeListener instead of > InstanceConfigChangeListener mostly for backwards compatibility reasons. Both > listeners listen on the same path, so changing an instance config will still > trigger the controller pipeline. Thus, you don't need to extend the > controller just so that it implements this one interface. > > May I know why the default controller implementation might fall short in your > system? > > Kanak > > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 21:23:42 -0800 > Subject: Helix 0.6.2: InstanceConfigChangeListener not implemented by > GenericHelixController > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Hi all, > > I am trying to get a prototype going with Helix 0.6.2 and noticed that the > HelixManager instance can take instances of Change Listeners. One of the new > change listeners is InstanceConfigChangeListener. As per the documentation I > can create an instance of the GenericHelixController and register it as a > listener for pretty much all other listeners but not > InstanceConfigChangeListener. > > InstanceConfigChangeListener replaces ConfigChangeListener which was > implemented by the GenericHelixController but it does not implement the > InstanceConfigChangeListener. Is this by design? > > I do plan to eventually look at whether I need to add my own implementation > or extension to the GenericHelixController but for now want to get a quick > prototype working, so is there a default implementation for the > InstanceConfigChangeListener I can use? > > Thanks, > > Sandeep
