Thanks for the proposal Matt. I am in favour of the [Scope][Benefits][Rationale] sections of your proposal. They are clear.
I am pretty sure I’m in favour of the [Proposal] section, so assuming my understanding is correct, and the voice of a humble community member is helpful, it's +1 at least on my end :) * The persistence layer knows best what term to use for mode, so it can expose words like, “primary”, “leader”, “follower” or “replica" * The broker layer knows best what state it is in by using information from the persistence layer and can expose “active” and “standby” * In the case of shared storage, “mode” is meaningless, so this is omitted * None of these have to be verbs, and likely won’t be? (I can’t think of any reason why a verb offers any added clarity for the existing supported options in the project). Étienne Hossack Software Development Engineer, Amazon MQ email: ehoss...@amazon.com<mailto:ehoss...@amazon.com> [cid:0CFB4B72-BC66-42A8-953C-779D7FAE3DC0@amazon.com] On Jul 12, 2021, at 10:40 AM, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com<mailto:mattr...@gmail.com>> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. [Abstract] ActiveMQ 5 and Artemis are both re-working legacy terminology to better describe function and move away from problematic language for shared storage and replication terminology indicators. [Background] JIRA discussion: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514> Mailing list: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Draft-proposal-for-terminology-change-td4758351.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Draft-proposal-for-terminology-change-td4758351.html> [Proposal] P-1. Broker layer will maintain a status— ‘active’ or ’standby’ based on signals from persistence layer P-2. Persistence layer will optionally provide a noun and verb based on the underlying technology's terminology. P-3. ActiveMQ project created persistence layers that support replication, the terminology should attempt to provide noun and verb terms to describe the mode and state. Mode: ‘primary’ and ‘replica’ Status: ‘active’ and ’standby' [Scope] S-1. Terminology alignment between ActiveMQ 5 and Artemis is only for shared storage, replicated storage, broker status, and future terms. [Benefits] B-1. Terms for Broker state will be aligned between ActiveMQ 5 and Artemis free of problematic language. B-2. Terms for replication will bubble up “as-is” based on the underlying persistence layer technology. B-3. If both ActiveMQ 5 and Artemis use the same replication tech, then terms will be aligned. B-4. If one provides a persistence layer adapter that the other does not there is no phantom noun or verb present on the other broker that has no direct technical meaning [Rationale] R-1. Attempting to create common terms may leave one broker with a phantom term that has no meaning R-2. Attempting to create common terms is problematic when two supported persistence adapter layer technology use different terms (leader / follower, vs primary / replica). R-3. Renaming terminology that is not problematic for the sake of alignment (ie. acceptor vs transportConnector) unfairly creates burden on the existing user base. Thank you, -Matt Pavlovich
