+0, it will make some people feel better (not sure but what i read) and some other feel worse since it is 1-1 in terms of meaning and positive/negative sense. However it is a breaking change to be useful which hurts everyone so maybe an user vote is better than a dev one?
Le lun. 27 juil. 2020 à 19:51, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> a écrit : > 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 > > > >
