+1 agree and well stated. I’ll kick off a message to get the ball moving on a draft proposal for consideration
> On Jul 25, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Christopher Shannon > <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > 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 <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 >>
