Hi Romain, For now, it’s not a vote, it’s a discussion/proposal. So, definitely, once we agree on the terms, I will do a formal vote on both dev and user mailing lists.
To be honest, my personal feeling is that these terms are "technical" and they have sense. I would not change anything. But due to the current "effort", I proposed the renaming ;) Regards JB > Le 27 juil. 2020 à 20:01, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> a écrit : > > +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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 >>> >> >>
