The replacement of these becomes a heavy lift work as we need to keep compatibility and deprecate old terms.
We need volunteers. <Friday joke>can we offer commit status to anyone doing it?</Friday joke> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:51 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Chiming in on the suggestions for terms— using numeric terms (primary, > secondary, etc) > Is inconsistent since there may be multiple failover nodes that take over > for the primary, > and it is generally non-deterministic. > > IMO having separate terms for nodes that take over a datastore and for > nodes that receive > replicated data would be a good thing because they are different things. > This would allow > the full truth table to be indicated at any given time. > > For example: > master (1 node) / slave (n nodes) becomes: active (1 node) / standby (n > nodes) > primary (1 node) -> replica (n nodes) > > > With this terminology, at a given time a node could be one of: > > ‘active’+‘primary’ > ‘active’+‘replica’ > ’standby’+’primary’ > ’standby’+’replica’ > > -Matt Pavlovich > > > On Jul 14, 2020, at 10:12 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 > > -- Clebert Suconic
