I investigate related materials again, maybe read-write-spilt is not a good name.
There are two features in Apache ShardingSphere now, master-slave and replica. Master-slave: Write to master data source and replication data to slave data sources async, and then read from slave data sources. Benefit: performance. Replica: Still in dev mode, we plan to use Raft algorithm to keep the multiple replicas with consensus. Benefit: consensus. The tow features can not use together, users can choose one of them in the same time only. I prefer to rename master-slave module to primary-secondary-replication, and rename replica module to consensus-replication. The new names can describe the feature more accurate and can let user to know they are mutually exclusive. Primary-standby-replication is another choice, but I am afraid the meaning of `standby` is waiting here and do nothing if normal, but the secondary data source still need to process the query requests. So, how about to rename the concept to: MasterSlave -> PrimarySecondaryReplication MasterDataSource -> PrimaryDataSource SlaveDataSource -> SecondaryDataSource Please advice me. ------------------ Sincerely, Liang Zhang (John) Apache ShardingSphere Hongwei Li <[email protected]> 于2020年9月14日周一 下午12:02写道： > I don't have any idea about how the module 'shardingsphere-master-slave' vs > 'shardingsphere-read-write-split', was named. > If there was no specific reason, it is like a historical debt, but does not > matter so much, as it has been there for a long time, everyone knows > the function of the module. > In the meantime, 'read-write-split' is more obvious from the > processing/action perspective of the module. 'Master/Slave' is also fine > from the processing object(datasource) perspective. > > For simple processing and not considering much, the replacement of > 'master/slave' to 'primary/replica' including the combinations is much > straightforward. It is kind of 'leave it as is' processing. > > For moving one step further, renaming the module to 'read-write-split' is a > way to go. The questions are: > shall we replace 'MasterSlave' as 'ReadWriteSplit' at all places? > Do we need to consider if the replacement is meaningful at any place, such > as the below names: > MasterSlaveDataSourceRuleConfiguration > MasterSlaveLoadBalanceAlgorithm > > > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 11:29 PM [email protected] < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I like > > > > MasterDataSource -> PrimaryDataSource > > SlaveDataSource -> ReplicaDataSource > > > > > > But I am not sure about > > > > MasterSlave -> PrimaryReplica > > > > Because ShardingSphere's feature is route the update SQL > > to PrimaryDataSource and route the query SQL to ReplicaDataSource. > > The name ReadWriteSplit may describe the feature more clear. > > > > Any suggestions? > > > > ------------------ > > > > Sincerely, > > Liang Zhang (John) > > Apache ShardingSphere > > > > > > Juan Pan <[email protected]> 于2020年9月13日周日 上午10:07写道： > > > > > Hi Craig, > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your suggestion. :-) > > > For me, both `primary` and `source` are ok. > > > > > > > > > > usually using terms like "primary", "secondary", "source", and > > "replica" > > > Considering the expression above is mentioned in [1]. > > > > > > > > > > There are good reasons for MySQL to use "source" instead of "primary" > > > because in their model there may be many "source" databases. > > > Actually, ShardingSphere could also have many "source" databases > > > (Depending on the user's configuration). > > > > > > > > > > MasterSlave -> ReadWriteSplit > > > IMO, this renaming does not sound wonderful. I prefer > > > > > > > > > > MasterSlave -> PrimaryReplica or MasterSlave -> SourceReplica > > > > > > > > > Moreover, I'd like to listen to others' opinions. > > > > > > > > > [1] https://mysqlhighavailability.com/mysql-terminology-updates/ > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > Trista > > > > > > > > > Juan Pan (Trista) > > > > > > Senior DBA & PMC of Apache ShardingSphere > > > E-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 09/12/2020 22:26，Craig Russell<[email protected]> wrote： > > > Hi, > > > > > > This will be a significant change so I think it would be good to > resolve > > > all of the naming before any PR is proposed. The first place to start > > might > > > be the documentation to see all of the name changes in one place. > > > > > > There are good reasons for MySQL to use "source" instead of "primary" > > > because in their model there may be many "source" databases. > Personally I > > > don't think "source" is particularly obvious to users, but they did not > > ask > > > me. ;-) > > > > > > For ShardingSphere, "primary" and "replica" seem to be better choices. > It > > > will be easy for us to tell users that ShardingSphere's "replica" > > > corresponds to MySQL's "source". > > > > > > So the concepts to be changed might be: > > > > > > MasterSlave -> PrimaryReplica > > > MasterDataSource -> PrimaryDataSource > > > SlaveDataSource -> ReplicaDataSource > > > > > > And again, it might be easier to review the name changes in the context > > of > > > documentation changes. > > > > > > HTH, > > > Craig > > > > > > On Sep 6, 2020, at 2:42 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I want to discuss to rename MasterSlave module to ReadWriteSplit > module. > > > > > > MySQL[1] has already change the master and slave to source and replica. > > > > > > Some concepts I plan to change: > > > > > > MasterSlave -> ReadWriteSplit > > > MasterDataSource -> SourceDataSource > > > SlaveDataSource -> ReplicaDataSource > > > > > > Please advice me. > > > > > > [1] https://mysqlhighavailability.com/mysql-terminology-updates/ > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Liang Zhang (John) > > > Apache ShardingSphere > > > > > > Craig L Russell > > > [email protected] > > > > > >
