My $0.02, the ‘primary’ ’secondary’ numeric-style terms can be misleading, since you can have multiple ’slave’ nodes and lock recovery is non-deterministic. So the ’secondary’ node doesn’t mean it is ’second’ in line to take over.
Thoughts on aligning with the proposed terms same as ActiveMQ? master -> ‘active’ slave -> ’standby' -Matt Pavlovich > On Jul 27, 2020, at 1:21 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I would like to propose new wording in some Karaf designs: > > - In Karaf runtime, I would like to rename master/slave to primary/secondary > - in Cellar, I would like to rename blacklist/whitelist to allowlist and deny > list > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB
