Justin, Looks like you sent your response right when I sent mine where I mentioned I was leaning towards having different terms between brokers.
You more accurately described the situation than I did. It's not so much a difference between 5.x and Artemis but two different scenarios of runtime vs configuration and I like your idea of having a set of nouns and adjectives and do think it would help solve the issue. I also think the terms you picked work well so I would be in favor of going with both sets and having Primary/Backup and also Active/Passive depending on the situation described. Chris On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:23 AM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > > When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the > broker name what should they see? > > It depends on which ActiveMQ broker they're using. > > In ActiveMQ "Classic" there is no configured state, as you note. There is > only runtime state, and it makes sense for that to be something like > "Active" or "Passive." > > However, in ActiveMQ Artemis there is both configured state and runtime > state so it would make sense to see something like "Active Primary," > "Active Backup," "Passive Backup," etc. > > This gets back to a suggestion I made on AMQ-7514 [1] almost a year ago now > - we need 2 nouns to denote configured state and 2 adjectives to denote > runtime state and we need to use those consistently across code & > documentation for both brokers. > > It may turn out that ActiveMQ "Classic" ultimately only uses the adjectives > and that's 100% fine. However, there is currently both documentation and > URL configuration which refers to "master" and "slave" in some capacity. > > In short, it's not sufficient to have just nouns or just adjectives. We > need *both* for the project as a whole. I think this disconnect is one of > the main reasons why we haven't resolved this matter already. > > My vote is for... > > Nouns: > [+1] Primary/Backup > > Adjectives: > [+1] Active/Passive > > > Justin > > [1] > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514?focusedCommentId=17377740&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17377740 > > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:36 AM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the > > broker name what should they see? > > > > Use Case 1: Why would it makes sense to a user that has a 5-broker NOB > > cluster see the term ‘primary’ 5 times? > > > > Use Case 2: Why would a user that has a single broker see a status of > > ‘primary’? > > > > Use Case 3: With two ‘master’ and two 'slave’ brokers in a cluster the > > user would see ‘primary’, ‘backup’, ‘primary’, ‘backup’. What does that > > mean? How can I have two ‘primary’ brokers? What are the ‘backup’ > instances > > backing up? > > > > See how these terms makes no sense in the context of how ActiveMQ brokers > > work and how users use them? > > > > All these use cases make more sense with: > > > > +1 Active / Standby > > > > I think the terminology is really important here, since there is already > > interest (redis) for adding add’l data store backends and enhancements to > > kahadb (replication)— and to have a goal to align with Artemis. > > > > -1 Leader/Follower — this should be reserved for a state or status flag > at > > the persistence layer > > -1 Backup — this is a bad term for using with a systems that store data. > > IMO in incorrectly insinuates that there is data being ‘backed-up’, which > > is not the case with ActiveMQ 5.x. > > -1 Primary — this is not a great term, since there is no secondary or > > tertiary concept. This also insinuates that there are always multiple > > instances. > > > > ActiveMQ 5.x only has a state — active or polling to become active. > > Transport connectors, network connectors, etc all go offline. These > > primary/leader/follower concepts should be pushed down to the persistence > > layer. > > > > Thanks, > > Matt Pavlovich > > > > > > > On May 6, 2022, at 1:26 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> > > > > > > > > > > >