Hi guys,
Following this proposal, I will move forward with some PRs.
On Karaf runtime side, the two renaming are master/slave to primary/seconday
and blacklist/whitelist to allowlist/denylist.
I would like to use the 4.3.0 slot to include these changes.
Regards
JB
> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 08:21,
Hi
Leader/follower - I know this from Zookeeper world, but "follower" is far
from being "passive" - it actively receives synchronization
events/objects/notifications and tries hard not to stay behind.
Definitely not related to a Karaf container waiting for a lock (unless the
discussion already
Hi,
Yeah, leader/follower (similar to Kafka wording) sounds good.
Regards
JB
> Le 28 juil. 2020 à 18:09, Matt Pavlovich a écrit :
>
> Hey JB-
>
> Interesting point. I’ve generally used the locking to keep bundles from going
> active as a way of having the service not know anything about
Hey JB-
Interesting point. I’ve generally used the locking to keep bundles from going
active as a way of having the service not know anything about karaf. I suppose
listening for the lock event could be used at the app level.
+1 Christian’s suggestion for ‘leader’ / ‘follower’.
-Matt
> On
Hello
- Allowlist/Denylist: +1
- I have no opinion on leader/primary/active, though active/passive sounds
most natural to me.
"master" branch - initially I thought it's not an issue, as there are no
"slave" branches. But I read[1] and I think it's a good idea. "main"
branch" seem in line with
How about leader / follower instead of master / slave?
Allowlist / denylist sounds good.
Christian
Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 08:22 Uhr schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofre <
j...@nanthrax.net>:
> Hi guys,
>
> I would like to propose new wording in some Karaf designs:
>
> - In Karaf runtime, I would
Hi Romain,
For now, it’s not a vote, it’s a discussion/proposal. So, definitely, once we
agree on the terms, I will do a formal vote on both dev and user mailing lists.
To be honest, my personal feeling is that these terms are "technical" and they
have sense. I would not change anything. But
Hi,
I mean Runtime, and depending of the lock level you can have all bundles active
on both instances.
Standby could be fine if it’s documented, but IMHO, it’s not really a standby
(like ActiveMQ one for instance).
Regards
JB
> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 20:46, Matt Pavlovich a écrit :
>
> JB-
>
I think 'primary' and 'replica' can be good.
regards,
François
fpa...@apache.org
Le 27/07/2020 à 20:46, Matt Pavlovich a écrit :
> JB-
>
> Are you referring to ‘Karaf Cave’ or ‘Karaf Runtime’?
>
> I think with Karaf Runtime locking, the warm boot tends to be to not have all
> bundles active,
JB-
Are you referring to ‘Karaf Cave’ or ‘Karaf Runtime’?
I think with Karaf Runtime locking, the warm boot tends to be to not have all
bundles active, for things that need to be singletons, such as scheduled jobs
and pollers. The Karaf Runtime is running enough to be monitored, but generally
+0, it will make some people feel better (not sure but what i read) and
some other feel worse since it is 1-1 in terms of meaning and
positive/negative sense.
However it is a breaking change to be useful which hurts everyone so maybe
an user vote is better than a dev one?
Le lun. 27 juil. 2020 à
No, I don’t think it’s accurate to Karaf.
Standby means that the instance is not "active", but actually, in the case of
Karaf, it’s active and replicate the "master/active".
That’s why I proposed primary/secondary. We can also use active/replica if you
think it’s more accurate.
Regards
JB
>
My $0.02, the ‘primary’ ’secondary’ numeric-style terms can be misleading,
since you can have multiple ’slave’ nodes and lock recovery is
non-deterministic. So the ’secondary’ node doesn’t mean it is ’second’ in line
to take over.
Thoughts on aligning with the proposed terms same as ActiveMQ?
LOL
François
fpa...@apache.org
Le 27/07/2020 à 16:37, Grzegorz Grzybek a écrit :
> But please don't use "trunk" - these days should be long gone ;)
>
> regards
> Grzegorz Grzybek
>
> pon., 27 lip 2020 o 16:19 Serge Huber napisał(a):
>
>> wow I didn't think of the git branch name !
>>
>> But
No way ;) trunk is for old guys ;)
Regards
JB
> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 16:37, Grzegorz Grzybek a écrit :
>
> But please don't use "trunk" - these days should be long gone ;)
>
> regards
> Grzegorz Grzybek
>
> pon., 27 lip 2020 o 16:19 Serge Huber napisał(a):
>
>> wow I didn't think of the git
But please don't use "trunk" - these days should be long gone ;)
regards
Grzegorz Grzybek
pon., 27 lip 2020 o 16:19 Serge Huber napisał(a):
> wow I didn't think of the git branch name !
>
> But default seems to make more sense than main to me.
>
> Regards,
> Serge...
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020
wow I didn't think of the git branch name !
But default seems to make more sense than main to me.
Regards,
Serge...
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 4:08 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre
wrote:
> We can rename the branch anyway.
>
> I guess they gonna change the "default" soon.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 27
We can rename the branch anyway.
I guess they gonna change the "default" soon.
Regards
JB
> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 16:06, Grzegorz Grzybek a écrit :
>
> Isn't "master" hardcoded in `git` binary - when you create an empty git
> repo?
>
> $ cd /data/tmp/
> $ mkdir x
> $ cd x
> $ git init
>
Isn't "master" hardcoded in `git` binary - when you create an empty git
repo?
$ cd /data/tmp/
$ mkdir x
$ cd x
$ git init
Initialized empty Git repository in /data/tmp/x/.git/
$ git branch -vv
$ git commit --allow-empty -m 'Initial commit'
[master (root-commit) f402a8e] Initial commit
$ git
It sounds good, main is fine.
I will do the rename and update documentation/website.
Regards
JB
> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:55, Francois Papon a
> écrit :
>
> May be we could use the new github default branch name "main".
>
> regards,
>
> François
> fpa...@apache.org
>
> Le 27/07/2020 à
+1
Thanks JB!
Freeman
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I would like to propose new wording in some Karaf designs:
>
> - In Karaf runtime, I would like to rename master/slave to
> primary/secondary
> - in Cellar, I would like to rename
May be we could use the new github default branch name "main".
regards,
François
fpa...@apache.org
Le 27/07/2020 à 14:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit :
> Yes, I forgot to mention this. I was about to propose develop branch instead
> of master branch.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à
Yes, I forgot to mention this. I was about to propose develop branch instead of
master branch.
Regards
JB
> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:37, Francois Papon a
> écrit :
>
> Should we also rename "master" branch on git?
>
> regards,
>
> François
> fpa...@apache.org
>
> Le 27/07/2020 à 13:57, Achim
Should we also rename "master" branch on git?
regards,
François
fpa...@apache.org
Le 27/07/2020 à 13:57, Achim Nierbeck a écrit :
> +1
>
> and wherever it fits best.
> Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give hints in
> the current documentation already?
>
> regards,
+1
Cheers,
Jamie
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:27 AM Achim Nierbeck
wrote:
>
> +1
>
> and wherever it fits best.
> Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give hints in
> the current documentation already?
>
> regards, Achim
>
>
> Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian
+1
and wherever it fits best.
Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give hints in
the current documentation already?
regards, Achim
Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian Lange <
lange.fab...@gmail.com>:
> +1
>
> as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own
+1
as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be okay with
this being even in 4.2.x
Even when not backwards compatible
Fabian
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I would like to propose new wording in some Karaf designs:
>
> - In
+1
regards,
François
fpa...@apache.org
Le 27/07/2020 à 08:21, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit :
> Hi guys,
>
> I would like to propose new wording in some Karaf designs:
>
> - In Karaf runtime, I would like to rename master/slave to primary/secondary
> - in Cellar, I would like to rename
+1
JBO - there will be XSDs to change:
-
https://github.com/apache/karaf/blob/master/features/core/src/main/java/org/apache/karaf/features/internal/model/processing/FeaturesProcessing.java#L71-L83
-
Hi,
I would like to use the next major release to do the change (4.3.0), as it’s
not really backward compatible.
Regards
JB
> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 08:44, Serge Huber a écrit :
>
> +1, I've also been looking at this for Apache Unomi.
>
> Will you do this in minor or major updates?
>
>
+1, I've also been looking at this for Apache Unomi.
Will you do this in minor or major updates?
Regards,
Serge...
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I would like to propose new wording in some Karaf designs:
>
> - In Karaf runtime, I would like to
31 matches
Mail list logo
