Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Hi Leader/follower - I know this from Zookeeper world, but "follower" is far from being "passive" - it actively receives synchronization events/objects/notifications and tries hard not to stay behind. Definitely not related to a Karaf container waiting for a lock (unless the discussion already moved to something different ;) regards Grzegorz Grzybek wt., 28 lip 2020 o 18:33 Jean-Baptiste Onofre napisał(a): > Hi, > > Yeah, leader/follower (similar to Kafka wording) sounds good. > > Regards > JB > > > Le 28 juil. 2020 à 18:09, Matt Pavlovich 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 > 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 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 > 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 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 > 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 > > > > >>> > >> > > > >
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Hi, Yeah, leader/follower (similar to Kafka wording) sounds good. Regards JB > Le 28 juil. 2020 à 18:09, Matt Pavlovich 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 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 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 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 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 >> 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 > >>> >> >
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
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 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 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 >>> 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 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 > 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 >>> >> >
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Hello - Allowlist/Denylist: +1 - I have no opinion on leader/primary/active, though active/passive sounds most natural to me. "master" branch - initially I thought it's not an issue, as there are no "slave" branches. But I read[1] and I think it's a good idea. "main" branch" seem in line with "main()" function. "trunk" is SVN thing and "default" reminds me of the "index.html" vs "default.asp" debate hundreds of years ago... regards Grzegorz Grzybek --- [1]: https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-alternative-term-to-avoid-slavery-references/ wt., 28 lip 2020 o 11:42 Christian Schneider napisał(a): > How about leader / follower instead of master / slave? > > Allowlist / denylist sounds good. > > Christian > > Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 08:22 Uhr schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofre < > j...@nanthrax.net>: > > > 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 > > > > -- > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Computer Scientist > http://www.adobe.com >
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
How about leader / follower instead of master / slave? Allowlist / denylist sounds good. Christian Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 08:22 Uhr schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofre < j...@nanthrax.net>: > 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 -- -- Christian Schneider http://www.liquid-reality.de Computer Scientist http://www.adobe.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
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 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 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 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 >> 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 >>> >> >>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
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 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 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 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 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 >>> >> >
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
I think 'primary' and 'replica' can be good. regards, François fpa...@apache.org Le 27/07/2020 à 20:46, Matt Pavlovich 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 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 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 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
