I think 'primary' and 'replica' can be good. regards,
François fpa...@apache.org Le 27/07/2020 à 20:46, Matt Pavlovich a écrit : > JB- > > Are you referring to ‘Karaf Cave’ or ‘Karaf Runtime’? > > I think with Karaf Runtime locking, the warm boot tends to be to not have all > bundles active, for things that need to be singletons, such as scheduled jobs > and pollers. The Karaf Runtime is running enough to be monitored, but > generally not running any active workload. This is what I was referring to as > ’standby’. > > I think ‘primary’ and ‘replica’ work great for replication use cases. > > -Matt > >> On Jul 27, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >> >> 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
