Hey Lucas, I think this is a good time to start working in these changes as work starts on 5.18.0.
My thoughts: Pav-1. This is a widely used url, we should take care to transition users. I suggest add this new handler and deprecate masterslave. Pav-2. IMHO 'leaderfollower’ is incorrect terminology— in this use case, it really is just a ‘failover’ behavior and there is no relation to the architecture of the target broker(s). Thanks, Matt Pavlovich > On Apr 29, 2022, at 1:08 PM, Tetreault, Lucas <tetlu...@amazon.com.INVALID> > wrote: > > Hey folks, > > TLDR; > I am submitting a PR to rename the "masterslave" network connector transport > to "leaderfollower" and I propose that we use leader/follower going forward > to replace all references to master/slave. > > The Long Version: > A tweet from a few days ago [1] raised the issue of non-inclusive terminology > in the AWS docs [2] and suggested that we should replace masterslave with a > more inclusive name for the network connector transport. The AWS docs refer > to a feature of ActiveMQ that is a convenience discovery agent: > https://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers#masterslave-discovery. We are > planning to change the docs to remove the recommendation to use the > masterslave transport. > > Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was raised in July 2020 [3]. > There was some initial work to rename the git branch from master to main and > there have been some attempts at making some changes to the code > (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679, > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714, > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) however we have not been able to > come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled > out. > > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move forward > with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will follow up > with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community and of > course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and make > ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other Apache > projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to > leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and > inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco, Intel, > and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA deployments, > however from previous discussions it's clear that active/standby is not a > viable option for this community since 'active' can be used to describe so > many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or some alternate we would > follow the community's preference and adopt leader/follower to better serve > our ActiveMQ users. > > If we can't come to an agreement on Leader/Follower or some other > nomenclature I will, at the very least, create a follow up PR to remove the > masterslave transport since it is just a convenience method to use > static+failover with ?randomize=false&maxReconnectAttempts=0. > > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032 > [2] > https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/ > > Thanks, > > Lucas Tétreault > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ > email: tetlu...@amazon.com >
