As I stated before I think this is a positive change and aligns with what many other projects and companies are already doing. I am willing to help out when I can and I think some others would help too. But in my opinion I think we need a consensus on the plan before we should do anything. There should be an agreement on what terms will be changed (and to what), how we will handle backwards compatibility and deprecation/removal going forward, etc.
So far I've seen a lot of negative feedback about this proposal (more so on the private list). I would hate to see people volunteer and spend a lot of time making changes only to have a binding -1 vote come in which would veto a code change. On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 3:35 PM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 < > > >> [email protected]> 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 < > [email protected] > > > > > >> ha > > >>> scritto: > > >>> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <[email protected]> > > >> 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 >
