No, I don’t think it’s accurate to Karaf. Standby means that the instance is not "active", but actually, in the case of Karaf, it’s active and replicate the "master/active".
That’s why I proposed primary/secondary. We can also use active/replica if you think it’s more accurate. Regards JB > Le 27 juil. 2020 à 18:26, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > 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 >
