Hi,

I mean Runtime, and depending of the lock level you can have all bundles active 
on both instances.

Standby could be fine if it’s documented, but IMHO, it’s not really a standby 
(like ActiveMQ one for instance).

Regards
JB

> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 20:46, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> 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
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to