Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> wrote:
Ken Gaillot <[email protected]> schrieb am 16.01.2018 um 23:33 in Nachricht
<[email protected]>:
As we look to release Pacemaker 2.0 and (separately) update the OCF
standard, this is a good time to revisit the terminology and syntax we
use for master/slave resources.
I think the term "stateful resource" is a better substitute for
"master/slave resource". That would mainly be a documentation change.
If there will be exactly two states, it'll be bi-state resource, and
when abandoning the name, you should also abandon names like promote
and demote, because they stick to master/slave.
That's not true; the concepts of promotion/demotion apply in entirely
different contexts to master/slave (e.g. careers), and in fact there
is a strong argument that outside a computing context they never
applied to master/slave in the first place.
So maybe start with describing what a stateful resource is, then talk about
names.
Good idea.
BTW: All resoiucres we have are "stateful", because they can be in started and
stopped states at least ;-)
Yes, good point :-)
[snipped]
* The long history of the terms master/slave being used in an
emotionally neutral context in engineering fields is not a reason to
continue using them. The concept of slavery *should not* be emotionally
neutral; it should evoke strong feelings.
To change anything because of the _word_ "slave" is absolute nonsense
IMHO. Next would be "servant", I guess, and then "server".
That's a gigantic leap from "slave" to "servant", and another big one
to "server". It would be great if we didn't have to dive into the
history of human oppression in this discussion; the differences should
be obvious to everyone.
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list: [email protected]
http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
