Hey JB- Interesting point. I’ve generally used the locking to keep bundles from going active as a way of having the service not know anything about karaf. I suppose listening for the lock event could be used at the app level.
+1 Christian’s suggestion for ‘leader’ / ‘follower’. -Matt > On Jul 28, 2020, at 2:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > 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 >>>> >>> >> >
