Jonathan, This is all true, however it ends up being hacky (this is from experience) and the core on the source needs to be deleted. Feel free to post to the issue.
Jason On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <rochk...@jhu.edu> wrote: > On 6/1/2011 10:52 AM, Jason Rutherglen wrote: >> >> nightmarish to setup. The problem is, it freezes each core into a >> respective role, so if I wanted to then 'move' the slave, I can't >> because it's still setup as a slave. > > Don't know if this helps or not, but you CAN set up a core as both a master > and a slave. Normally this is to make it a "repeater", still always taking > from the same upstream and sending downstream. But there might be a way to > hack it for your needs without actually changing Java code, a core _can_ be > both a master and slave simultaneously, and there might be a way to change > it's masterURL (where it pulls from when acting as a slave) without > restarting the core too. You can supply a 'custom' (not configured) > masterURL in a manual 'pull' command (over HTTP), but of course usually > slaves poll rather than be directed by manual 'pull' commands. > >
