Hi Clebert, There absolutely isn't general consensus on the terminology used :).
Like you (I infer from what you wrote), I don't see how the terms would be offensive. They have a clear, well documented, meaning for many decades and they clearly apply to computers and services, not humans. Anybody with a minimum of education in computer science knows (or should know) that. Because of the costs incurred by downstream users with no real benefit. I am personally a strong -1 for such a change. I am also disappointed that the issue is not discussed based on its merits, but based on the potential emotional reaction of an unspecified group that may or may not have anything to do with the project. The proposed change is also racist and wrong, based on the fact that it excludes a lot of groups from the conversation and is just a knee jerk reaction to current events in a tiny part of the world called the USA. ActiveMQ serves the whole world for more than a decade. Probably this will look silly in a few years, but the damage would be already done by then. I would be impressed if the proponent of the change would analyse the implications, but I won't hold my breath. Just because it had to be said, Hadrian On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:12 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would Prefer avoiding passive and active. > > > TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered a > slave without being offensive. > > But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal > opinion to the side there. > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic >
