Hi, Yeah, leader/follower (similar to Kafka wording) sounds good.
Regards JB > Le 28 juil. 2020 à 18:09, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
