[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4998?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13700450#comment-13700450
]
Anshum Gupta edited comment on SOLR-4998 at 7/5/13 4:27 AM:
------------------------------------------------------------
bq. So I agree, there is really no need for "Slice" here. I already forgot
about that term.
It's just a term that we used for (what we're now calling) Shards. It's deep in
the code. At the same time considering that this has the least exposure to the
outside world, it's our best bet at being changed.
bq. People will refer to physical copies, those Replicas, as Shards.
Exactly what yonik said. There's confusion in the use of the term Shard but I
believe it's just a matter of clean documentation.
bq. Would introducing the term "Follower" help?
I wouldn't want that extra element introduced. A 'leader' is just a specific
non-default role for a Replica wherein it does some extra bit. Again, we could
just fix our documentation on that.
bq. Personally, I'm happy with the current slice/replica terminology in the
code and I don't much care if it matches the external doc terminology.
+1, but people outside of here rarely use/see 'Slice' and so as Yonik
suggested, it seems better to converge towards 'Shard' and 'Replicas'. That is
what I'm working on, doing away with 'Slice'.
bq. but I certainly don't think its worth breaking all those api's to change
the names in the code now - unless it's a couple minor consistency issues.
This certainly would mean breaking back-compat with a few things at least. May
be more. I am almost half way through and already have a good 250k patch with
instances where Slice and Shard are used interchangeably. There are other
places where a Replica is referred to as a Shard. So it's just all mixed up.
bq. It may be too late to change this in SolrCloud now even if everyone
agreed...
I don't think we can/should make a change that drastic. As long as it's a
little consistent and documented, Shard and Replicas should work fine for us.
To get an opinion, do you guys think we shouldn't be 'renaming' public APIs?
was (Author: anshumg):
bq. So I agree, there is really no need for "Slice" here. I already forgot
about that term.
It's just a term that we used for (what we're now calling) Shards. It's deep in
the code. At the same time considering that this has the least exposure to the
outside world, it's our best bet at being changed.
bq. People will refer to physical copies, those Replicas, as Shards.
Exactly what yonik said. There's confusion in the use of the term Shard but I
believe it's just a matter of clean documentation.
bq. Would introducing the term "Follower" help?
I wouldn't want that extra element introduced. A 'leader' is just a specific
non-default role for a Replica wherein it does some extra bit. Again, we could
just fix our documentation on that.
bq. Personally, I'm happy with the current slice/replica terminology in the
code and I don't much care if it matches the external doc terminology.
+1, but people outside of here rarely use/see 'Slice' and so as Yonik
suggested, it seems better to converge towards 'Shard' and 'Replicas'. That is
what I'm working on, doing away with 'Slice'.
bq. but I certainly don't think its worth breaking all those api's to change
the names in the code now - unless it's a couple minor consistency issues.
This certainly would mean breaking back-compat with a few things at least. May
be more. I am almost half way through and already have a good 250k patch with
instances where Slice and Shard are used interchangeably. There are other
places where a Replica is referred to as a Shard. So it's just all mixed up.
bq. It may be too late to change this in SolrCloud now even if everyone
agreed...
I don't think we can/should make a change that drastic. As long as it's a
little consistent and documented, Shard and Replicas should work fine for us.
To get an opinion, do you guys think we shouldn't be 'touching' public APIs?
> Make the use of Slice and Shard consistent across the code and document base
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-4998
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4998
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: SolrCloud
> Affects Versions: 4.3, 4.3.1
> Reporter: Anshum Gupta
>
> The interchangeable use of Slice and Shard is pretty confusing at times. We
> should define each separately and use the apt term whenever we do so.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
