Re: [DISCUSS] Draft proposal for terminology change

FWIW, there is already a ticket for the work: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 Bruce On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 12:25 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote: > Kicking off draft proposal conversation, we can then convert this to a > ticket. I’ve collected ideas from the recent dev mailing list

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft proposal for terminology change

On 7/25/20 2:24 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote: Kicking off draft proposal conversation, we can then convert this to a ticket. I’ve collected ideas from the recent dev mailing list convo. I’m sure I’ve missed some key points and am not married to anything here. Please chime in! Description: Support

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft proposal for terminology change

Hey Clebert- Good point. Perhaps clarifying that the terms may remain in the code base during Phase 1 for backwards compatibility and migration assistance logging notification. Then in a Phase 2. the terms are fully removed from codebase. [Draft rev 3] Kicking off draft proposal conversation,

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft proposal for terminology change

Huge +1 from me. Major thanks for putting a concrete proposal together. -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend - http://talend.com > On Jul 25, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote: > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft proposal for terminology change

+1, looks good to me so far. I like those terms and think they make more sense and are more descriptive than the old terms. I can help work on the OpenWire changes in 5.x and Artemis to make sure everything is backwards compatible once everyone agrees. For logging, the warn level is probably

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft proposal for terminology change

+1 with the new terms. I think we can plan this step by step for new releases and website/documentation update (with the corresponding Jira for tracking). Regards JB > Le 26 juil. 2020 à 05:39, Matt Pavlovich a écrit : > > Clebert— Good catch, updated below > > [Draft rev 2] > > Kicking

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft proposal for terminology change

+1000 on everything Not -1.. just asking a question on what to do in case old configs are in place. We mentioned log.warn something like (Hey. .change to the new term); Do we really want to do the log.warn, or should we just silently load it as we do for other deprecated terms? On Sat, Jul 25,

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft proposal for terminology change

Clebert— Good catch, updated below [Draft rev 2] Kicking off draft proposal conversation, we can then convert this to a ticket. I’ve collected ideas from the recent dev mailing list convo. I’m sure I’ve missed some key points and am not married to anything here. Please chime in! Description:

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft proposal for terminology change

You’re missing blacklist and white list. Should be allow list. And deny list. On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 2:25 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote: > Kicking off draft proposal conversation, we can then convert this to a > ticket. I’ve collected ideas from the recent dev mailing list convo. I’m > sure I’ve

[DISCUSS] Draft proposal for terminology change

Kicking off draft proposal conversation, we can then convert this to a ticket. I’ve collected ideas from the recent dev mailing list convo. I’m sure I’ve missed some key points and am not married to anything here. Please chime in! Description: Support migration of terms such as ‘master’ and