Definitely a framework. A framework provides (and imposes) structure and gives you a working solution. A toolkit has building blocks, but you're on your own to put them together.
Consider adding either of these modifiers, though that might weaken the message because of whatever we omit from the modifier list: Helix - A framework for reliable distributed systems development Helix - A framework for scalable distributed systems development - Bob > How about this > > > Helix - A framework for distributed systems development > Helix - A Distributed System Development toolkit > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Greg Brandt <brandt.g...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> From talking w/ Kishore earlier, think the key thing to convey to users >> is the level of control they get. "Cluster manager/management" seems >> like something relatively out of the user's control, like some external >> service that contains their services. But "framework" or "toolkit" >> conveys more control, like the user is building a system such as a >> cluster manager (in the YARN / Mesos sense), which is probably more >> in-line with what Helix actually is. >> >> -Greg >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:07 PM, kishore g <g.kish...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Throwing in another option "Toolkit for building distributed >>> systems". >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Kanak Biscuitwala >>> <kana...@hotmail.com >>> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> SolrCloud's Helix clone throws around the word "orchestrate". I >>>> have >>> found >>>> it to be a useful term when describing Helix to others as well. >>>> >>>>> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:25:27 -0700 >>>>> Subject: Re: Re-define: What is Helix >>>>> From: osgig...@gmail.com >>>>> To: u...@helix.apache.org >>>>> CC: dev@helix.apache.org >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I read through the response on the stackoverflow and from what I >>>>> know the crux of the Helix framework appears to be 'Automation of >>>>> Declarative State Management for Clustered Resources' ... now >>>>> isn't that a mouth-full :-) >>>>> >>>>> I think any other capability with scaling etc is add-on to the >>>>> core competency of Helix. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Shirshanka Das < >>>>> >> shirsha...@gmail.com >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Think about analogies to netty for network programming in Java >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _____________________________ >>>>>> From: kishore g <g.kish...@gmail.com> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 10:46 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re-define: What is Helix >>>>>> To: <u...@helix.apache.org>, <dev@helix.apache.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi,This is something that has been bothering most of us. Should >>>>>> we >>>> callHelix >>>>>> *"clustermanagement framework"*? Its a framework alright, but >>>>>> is it clustermanager?- I am not sure. Cluster management is a >>>>>> broad term >>> and >>>> can >>>>>> meandifferent things to different people. But the most common >>>> understanding >>>>>> ofcluster management term is managing a set of machines and >>>>>> starting/stoppingprocesses on those machines. In other words, >>>>>> it >>>> cluster >>>>>> management issynonymous to a deployment solution.Because of >>>>>> this terminology, Helix is often compared with >>>>>> Mesos/YARN/Ambariand >>>>>> >> other >>>>>> frameworks that manage the start/stop of processes. I >>>>>> haveanswered >>> this >>>>>> athttp://stackoverflow.com/questions/16401412/apache-helix-vs-y >>>>>> arn >>> but >>>>>> everyone i talk to ask the same question again and again. For >>>>>> e.g. >>> some >>>>>> oneasked if they can put together a Hadoop Cluster using Helix. >>>>>> >> Here >> >>>> is the >>>>>> Hadoopecosystem table where Helix islabelled as system >>>>>> deployment.I >>>> feel the >>>>>> best way to clear this confusion is re-brand Helix as >>>>>> somethingelse >>>> that >>>>>> helps one understand what it is and when can some one use >>>>>> it.What >> do >>>> others >>>>>> think. Any suggestions on what we should re-brand it >>> as?thanks,Kishore >>>> G >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
