I was going to suggest 'An framework to manage/orchestrate distributed systems'. I use manage or orchestrate as suggestion to pick one, I lean towards orchestrate. I think Kanak was the first one to suggest 'orchestrate' and I thought it fit well.
I also agree with Bob's latter statement that by virtue of omitting one or the other of the modifiers it could give the reader a wrong impression. So I would lean towards not adding any and go with the notion that users should expect these to be reliable and scalable. On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Bob Schulman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Throwing in another option "Toolkit for building distributed >>>> systems". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Kanak Biscuitwala >>>> <[email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> 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: [email protected] >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> CC: [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 < >>>>>> >>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Think about analogies to netty for network programming in Java >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _____________________________ >>>>>>> From: kishore g <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 10:46 AM >>>>>>> Subject: Re-define: What is Helix >>>>>>> To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
