Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is generally called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not perfect, but it covers most cases.
Justin On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino < bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or other > terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA > configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role of the > broker. > For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role could > acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover. > > Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <jda...@redhat.com> ha > scritto: > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every usage > in > > > activeMQ. > > > > > > > Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is > replicating > > the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies. > The > > "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the master > > coordinates and all work is done on slaves. > > > > Looking at > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming, > > I'd suggest one of > > > > ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader / follower’ > > > > I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it > > somewhere in the context of database replication. > > > > Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit of the > > echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children, > reaping > > zombies). > > -- > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards > > Jiri Daněk > > >
