[+1] Leader/Follower
[-1] Primary/Backup - it doesn't sound right to me, as it doesn't imply
that there might be a role switch.
Krzysztof
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:26 AM Tetreault, Lucas
wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
>
On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 07:26, Tetreault, Lucas
wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
> committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that
> this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final
Of the various things mentioned so far I would go with Primary/Backup
or Primary/Replica.
Sticking to just the original choices in this thread only, that would be:
[+1] Primary/Backup
[-1] Leader/Follower
On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 11:43, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 07:26,
I'd be +1 on active/passive as well.
Jon
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:06 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> -1 for leader/follower, it doesn't apply for current master/slave
> mechanism, it's not the same semantic as in Kafka for instance
> -1 for primary/backup, technically, this one could work,
Hey folks,
I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that this
was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final conclusion
on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not
-1 for leader/follower, it doesn't apply for current master/slave
mechanism, it's not the same semantic as in Kafka for instance
-1 for primary/backup, technically, this one could work, but it sounds
"confusing" to me
+1 for active/passive is probably the most accurate and describe the
behavior
+1 for active/passive - very often is used in conversation
Regards
Iliya Grushevskiy
> 6 мая 2022 г., в 09:26, Tetreault, Lucas
> написал(а):
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
> committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it
Hey folks,
I wanted to provide an update on this work. After lots of discussion on GitHub
and Slack it has become apparent that I unnecessarily coupled the work to
remove non-inclusive terms from the "masterslave" discovery transport to the
use of non-inclusive terms in general within
I think it is reasonable to remove older docs, both to control the
size of the site content and since people should be using the more
recent things already.
For Qpid the main docs page links to the current docs, and links to
the 'past releases' page where each release page then has that
versions
I think that can have its own issues in terms of most easily (for us
and them) directing folks to the appropriate bit of doc when answering
a question, given how often users love to ask questions about
not-latest versions. I've found maintaining a window of docs to be a
good balance.
E.g consider
because that is actually what master/slave evolate, when in a new era.
Xeno Amess 于2022年5月6日周五 20:33写道：
> +1 for capitalist/worker
>
> Clebert Suconic 于2022年5月6日周五 20:27写道：
>
>> We already had this discussion before I think, and we decided for
>> Primary/Backup
>>
>>
>> if you still want to
+1 for Primary/Backup with my reasoning below.
First, it's pretty clear like "leader/follower" is a no go based on the
feedback so far so we can throw that out.
For HA, there are slightly different use cases here depending on the broker
and mode chosen with how HA works which is probably why
Hi Matt ,
Please see the below link
https://ibb.co/xF6J6jP
Regards
Chandan
From: Matt Pavlovich
Sent: 06 May 2022 20:04
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Active Consumers not shown in ApacheActiveMQ 5.17.1
Hi Chndan- Images get stripped from the mailing list. Would you please post the
Justin,
Looks like you sent your response right when I sent mine where I mentioned
I was leaning towards having different terms between brokers.
You more accurately described the situation than I did. It's not so much a
difference between 5.x and Artemis but two different scenarios of runtime
vs
Hi All ,
I recently did an Active MQ upgrade for Spring4Shell remediation and upgrade to
5.17.1 . Since upgrade I am unable to see the active consumers and produces on
the web console , the feature was working until 5.17.0 version . Any insights
on same
[cid:image001.png@01D8617A.7C5CA3A0]
When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the broker
name what should they see?
Use Case 1: Why would it makes sense to a user that has a 5-broker NOB cluster
see the term ‘primary’ 5 times?
Use Case 2: Why would a user that has a single broker see a status of
I would prefer only keeping the current doc... older docs are part of
the zip bundle anyways, right?
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:02 AM Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> I think it is reasonable to remove older docs, both to control the
> size of the site content and since people should be using the more
>
+1 Chris and Justin rationale. I agree with having an agreed upon set of noun
and adjective pairs for the project that the brokers can adopt accordingly.
Regarding the url term usage in ActiveMQ 5.x— that instance of the terminology
usage is being corrected in an open PR, and can safely be
On 5/6/22 02:26, Tetreault, Lucas wrote:
[ ] Primary/Backup
[+1] Primary/Backup
--
Tim Bish
Hi Chndan-
Images get stripped from the mailing list. Would you please post the image to
an image sharing site and share the link?
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On May 6, 2022, at 8:22 AM, Chandan Singh
> wrote:
>
> Hi All ,
>
> I recently did an Active MQ upgrade for Spring4Shell remediation
I'd be ok with Active/Standby specifically for 5.x, but not sure if it
works for Artemis or not without thinking about it more so I'd want to hear
from people with more Artemis experience.
I am starting to think more and more that to be the most accurate we may
need different terms for each
+1 for capitalist/worker
Clebert Suconic 于2022年5月6日周五 20:27写道：
> We already had this discussion before I think, and we decided for
> Primary/Backup
>
>
> if you still want to keep the vote for that...
>
> [+1] primary/backup
> [-1000] Leader/Follower
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 6:57 AM Robbie
Hi
Unfortunately, the image is not displayed on the mailing list.
Can you please send the test case and image to me (jbono...@apache.org) ?
Thanks,
Regards
JB
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 3:22 PM Chandan Singh
wrote:
> Hi All ,
>
>
>
> I recently did an Active MQ upgrade for Spring4Shell
> When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the
broker name what should they see?
It depends on which ActiveMQ broker they're using.
In ActiveMQ "Classic" there is no configured state, as you note. There is
only runtime state, and it makes sense for that to be something
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-8597
Regards
Chandan
From: Tetreault, Lucas
Sent: 06 May 2022 22:53
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Active Consumers not shown in ApacheActiveMQ 5.17.1
I just tested it and was able to recreate the issue as described. It seems to
be related
I just tested it and was able to recreate the issue as described. It seems to
be related to this PR: https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/743. Reverting
that change will show the consumers again but the original issue returns - not
being able to see consumers for queues with a colon in the
+1 for switching to slf4j
My only one and main comment will be that it is essential that the out the box
configuration should result in the same log formats and codes as today, as I
know many rely on log format parsing and rules for alerting, so to be non
breaking change the log output should
What harm is there in keeping old docs? I’m a little -1 removal of old docs
unless there’s areal pressing driver that cannot be addressed / resolved.
E.g. what is the driver here?
Space on the http server? I’d be a bit surprised if it was due to this docs
aren’t that huge, and in this day and
My understanding was previous discuss thread was that we leant for for
Primary/Backup
What I was suggesting as it seemed it wasn’t closed out and it continues to
rumble on was a binary vote per Apache voting on that as the proposal to end
and close it out formally.
As this is multiple choice
Hi Krzysztof
As highlighted by Tim, as you’re realising off the 1.8 branch some of the
maintenance bits we do on master/main need to pulled/cherrypicked back to the
1.8 branch
E.g, these
https://github.com/apache/activemq-nms-api/commit/efc6a84c410d17154f85ad45b050aac31d3959ea
We already had this discussion before I think, and we decided for Primary/Backup
if you still want to keep the vote for that...
[+1] primary/backup
[-1000] Leader/Follower
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 6:57 AM Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Of the various things mentioned so far I would go with
Thanks.. please also share the queue list and connections page views as well ;-)
> On May 6, 2022, at 9:56 AM, Chandan Singh
> wrote:
>
> Hi Matt ,
>
> Please see the below link
>
> https://ibb.co/xF6J6jP
>
> Regards
> Chandan
>
> From: Matt Pavlovich
> Sent: 06 May 2022 20:04
> To:
My 2 cents...
For AMQ 5: Active / Passive or Active / Standby makes sense for H/A. NOB
it does not apply - each "node" (H/A pair in case every broker is running
in H/A) has active/passive pairs. So yes, a NOB could have a bunch of
brokers all in Active state if none of the nodes is running H/A.
33 matches
Mail list logo
