-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 (we have one broker active, and several passive)
Regards JB On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:26 AM Tetreault, Lucas <tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid> 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 > conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call for > a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :) > > > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive terminology > in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we should replace > “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network connector transport. > Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was raised as a Jira issue in > July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in November 2020 [7]. There was > some initial work to rename the git branch from master to main, 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) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a > thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], 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. > > > > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to replace > master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.: active/standby) > but I think we can move forward on this vote without deciding what those > terms should be assuming people agree these options will support having a > status layered on top. > > > > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide > specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options. > > [ ] Leader/Follower > > [ ] Primary/Backup > > > > > > [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/ > [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj > [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c > > Lucas Tétreault > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ > email: tetlu...@amazon.com<mailto:tetlu...@amazon.com> > >
