You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@karaf.apache.org by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net> on 2020/07/27 06:21:44 UTC
[PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
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
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
+1
regards,
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 27/07/2020 à 08:21, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit :
> 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
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net> 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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
+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 <jb...@nanthrax.net> 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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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
> >
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
I think 'primary' and 'replica' can be good.
regards,
François
fpapon@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 <jb...@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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi,
It’s basically the case depending of the lock level. The user by configuration can have a complete "passive/standby" instance, or can have "active" instance syncing some bundle state.
That’s why I proposed primary/secondary as first attend as it covers both cases.
Regards
JB
> Le 28 juil. 2020 à 19:37, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net> napisał(a):
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yeah, leader/follower (similar to Kafka wording) sounds good.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>> Le 28 juil. 2020 à 18:09, Matt Pavlovich <ma...@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 <jb...@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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com>.
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 <jb...@nanthrax.net> napisał(a):
> Hi,
>
> Yeah, leader/follower (similar to Kafka wording) sounds good.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 28 juil. 2020 à 18:09, Matt Pavlovich <ma...@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 <jb...@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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi,
Yeah, leader/follower (similar to Kafka wording) sounds good.
Regards
JB
> Le 28 juil. 2020 à 18:09, Matt Pavlovich <ma...@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 <jb...@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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
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 <jb...@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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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
>>>
>>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
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 <jb...@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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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
>>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
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 <ma...@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 <jb...@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
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
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 <jb...@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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
LOL
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 27/07/2020 à 16:37, Grzegorz Grzybek a écrit :
> But please don't use "trunk" - these days should be long gone ;)
>
> regards
> Grzegorz Grzybek
>
> pon., 27 lip 2020 o 16:19 Serge Huber <sh...@apache.org> napisał(a):
>
>> wow I didn't think of the git branch name !
>>
>> But default seems to make more sense than main to me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Serge...
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 4:08 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We can rename the branch anyway.
>>>
>>> I guess they gonna change the "default" soon.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 16:06, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>> Isn't "master" hardcoded in `git` binary - when you create an empty git
>>>> repo?
>>>>
>>>> $ cd /data/tmp/
>>>> $ mkdir x
>>>> $ cd x
>>>> $ git init
>>>> Initialized empty Git repository in /data/tmp/x/.git/
>>>> $ git branch -vv
>>>> $ git commit --allow-empty -m 'Initial commit'
>>>> [master (root-commit) f402a8e] Initial commit
>>>> $ git branch -vv
>>>> * master f402a8e Initial commit
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>> Grzegorz Grzybek
>>>>
>>>> pon., 27 lip 2020 o 15:21 Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>> napisał(a):
>>>>> It sounds good, main is fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will do the rename and update documentation/website.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:55, Francois Papon <
>> francois.papon@openobject.fr
>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>> May be we could use the new github default branch name "main".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> François
>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 27/07/2020 à 14:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit :
>>>>>>> Yes, I forgot to mention this. I was about to propose develop branch
>>>>> instead of master branch.
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:37, Francois Papon <
>>> francois.papon@openobject.fr>
>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>> Should we also rename "master" branch on git?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> François
>>>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 27/07/2020 à 13:57, Achim Nierbeck a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and wherever it fits best.
>>>>>>>>> Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give
>>> hints
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the current documentation already?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> regards, Achim
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian Lange <
>>>>>>>>> lange.fabian@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be
>>>>> okay with
>>>>>>>>>> this being even in 4.2.x
>>>>>>>>>> Even when not backwards compatible
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fabian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <
>>>>> jb@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
>>>>>
>>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
No way ;) trunk is for old guys ;)
Regards
JB
> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 16:37, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> But please don't use "trunk" - these days should be long gone ;)
>
> regards
> Grzegorz Grzybek
>
> pon., 27 lip 2020 o 16:19 Serge Huber <sh...@apache.org> napisał(a):
>
>> wow I didn't think of the git branch name !
>>
>> But default seems to make more sense than main to me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Serge...
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 4:08 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We can rename the branch anyway.
>>>
>>> I guess they gonna change the "default" soon.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 16:06, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Isn't "master" hardcoded in `git` binary - when you create an empty git
>>>> repo?
>>>>
>>>> $ cd /data/tmp/
>>>> $ mkdir x
>>>> $ cd x
>>>> $ git init
>>>> Initialized empty Git repository in /data/tmp/x/.git/
>>>> $ git branch -vv
>>>> $ git commit --allow-empty -m 'Initial commit'
>>>> [master (root-commit) f402a8e] Initial commit
>>>> $ git branch -vv
>>>> * master f402a8e Initial commit
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>> Grzegorz Grzybek
>>>>
>>>> pon., 27 lip 2020 o 15:21 Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>> napisał(a):
>>>>
>>>>> It sounds good, main is fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will do the rename and update documentation/website.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:55, Francois Papon <
>> francois.papon@openobject.fr
>>>>
>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> May be we could use the new github default branch name "main".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> François
>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 27/07/2020 à 14:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit :
>>>>>>> Yes, I forgot to mention this. I was about to propose develop branch
>>>>> instead of master branch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:37, Francois Papon <
>>> francois.papon@openobject.fr>
>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Should we also rename "master" branch on git?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> François
>>>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 27/07/2020 à 13:57, Achim Nierbeck a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and wherever it fits best.
>>>>>>>>> Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give
>>> hints
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the current documentation already?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> regards, Achim
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian Lange <
>>>>>>>>> lange.fabian@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be
>>>>> okay with
>>>>>>>>>> this being even in 4.2.x
>>>>>>>>>> Even when not backwards compatible
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fabian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <
>>>>> jb@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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com>.
But please don't use "trunk" - these days should be long gone ;)
regards
Grzegorz Grzybek
pon., 27 lip 2020 o 16:19 Serge Huber <sh...@apache.org> napisał(a):
> wow I didn't think of the git branch name !
>
> But default seems to make more sense than main to me.
>
> Regards,
> Serge...
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 4:08 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > We can rename the branch anyway.
> >
> > I guess they gonna change the "default" soon.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > > Le 27 juil. 2020 à 16:06, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com> a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > Isn't "master" hardcoded in `git` binary - when you create an empty git
> > > repo?
> > >
> > > $ cd /data/tmp/
> > > $ mkdir x
> > > $ cd x
> > > $ git init
> > > Initialized empty Git repository in /data/tmp/x/.git/
> > > $ git branch -vv
> > > $ git commit --allow-empty -m 'Initial commit'
> > > [master (root-commit) f402a8e] Initial commit
> > > $ git branch -vv
> > > * master f402a8e Initial commit
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Grzegorz Grzybek
> > >
> > > pon., 27 lip 2020 o 15:21 Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > napisał(a):
> > >
> > >> It sounds good, main is fine.
> > >>
> > >> I will do the rename and update documentation/website.
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >> JB
> > >>
> > >>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:55, Francois Papon <
> francois.papon@openobject.fr
> > >
> > >> a écrit :
> > >>>
> > >>> May be we could use the new github default branch name "main".
> > >>>
> > >>> regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> François
> > >>> fpapon@apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>> Le 27/07/2020 à 14:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit :
> > >>>> Yes, I forgot to mention this. I was about to propose develop branch
> > >> instead of master branch.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards
> > >>>> JB
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:37, Francois Papon <
> > francois.papon@openobject.fr>
> > >> a écrit :
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Should we also rename "master" branch on git?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> regards,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> François
> > >>>>> fpapon@apache.org
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Le 27/07/2020 à 13:57, Achim Nierbeck a écrit :
> > >>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> and wherever it fits best.
> > >>>>>> Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give
> > hints
> > >> in
> > >>>>>> the current documentation already?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> regards, Achim
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian Lange <
> > >>>>>> lange.fabian@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be
> > >> okay with
> > >>>>>>> this being even in 4.2.x
> > >>>>>>> Even when not backwards compatible
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Fabian
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <
> > >> jb@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
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Serge Huber <sh...@apache.org>.
wow I didn't think of the git branch name !
But default seems to make more sense than main to me.
Regards,
Serge...
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 4:08 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> We can rename the branch anyway.
>
> I guess they gonna change the "default" soon.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 27 juil. 2020 à 16:06, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
> >
> > Isn't "master" hardcoded in `git` binary - when you create an empty git
> > repo?
> >
> > $ cd /data/tmp/
> > $ mkdir x
> > $ cd x
> > $ git init
> > Initialized empty Git repository in /data/tmp/x/.git/
> > $ git branch -vv
> > $ git commit --allow-empty -m 'Initial commit'
> > [master (root-commit) f402a8e] Initial commit
> > $ git branch -vv
> > * master f402a8e Initial commit
> >
> > regards
> > Grzegorz Grzybek
> >
> > pon., 27 lip 2020 o 15:21 Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> napisał(a):
> >
> >> It sounds good, main is fine.
> >>
> >> I will do the rename and update documentation/website.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:55, Francois Papon <francois.papon@openobject.fr
> >
> >> a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> May be we could use the new github default branch name "main".
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>>
> >>> François
> >>> fpapon@apache.org
> >>>
> >>> Le 27/07/2020 à 14:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit :
> >>>> Yes, I forgot to mention this. I was about to propose develop branch
> >> instead of master branch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> JB
> >>>>
> >>>>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:37, Francois Papon <
> francois.papon@openobject.fr>
> >> a écrit :
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Should we also rename "master" branch on git?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> François
> >>>>> fpapon@apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Le 27/07/2020 à 13:57, Achim Nierbeck a écrit :
> >>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> and wherever it fits best.
> >>>>>> Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give
> hints
> >> in
> >>>>>> the current documentation already?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> regards, Achim
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian Lange <
> >>>>>> lange.fabian@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be
> >> okay with
> >>>>>>> this being even in 4.2.x
> >>>>>>> Even when not backwards compatible
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Fabian
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <
> >> jb@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
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
We can rename the branch anyway.
I guess they gonna change the "default" soon.
Regards
JB
> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 16:06, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Isn't "master" hardcoded in `git` binary - when you create an empty git
> repo?
>
> $ cd /data/tmp/
> $ mkdir x
> $ cd x
> $ git init
> Initialized empty Git repository in /data/tmp/x/.git/
> $ git branch -vv
> $ git commit --allow-empty -m 'Initial commit'
> [master (root-commit) f402a8e] Initial commit
> $ git branch -vv
> * master f402a8e Initial commit
>
> regards
> Grzegorz Grzybek
>
> pon., 27 lip 2020 o 15:21 Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net> napisał(a):
>
>> It sounds good, main is fine.
>>
>> I will do the rename and update documentation/website.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:55, Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>
>> a écrit :
>>>
>>> May be we could use the new github default branch name "main".
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> François
>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>
>>> Le 27/07/2020 à 14:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit :
>>>> Yes, I forgot to mention this. I was about to propose develop branch
>> instead of master branch.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>>
>>>>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:37, Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>
>> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we also rename "master" branch on git?
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> François
>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 27/07/2020 à 13:57, Achim Nierbeck a écrit :
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and wherever it fits best.
>>>>>> Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give hints
>> in
>>>>>> the current documentation already?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards, Achim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian Lange <
>>>>>> lange.fabian@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be
>> okay with
>>>>>>> this being even in 4.2.x
>>>>>>> Even when not backwards compatible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fabian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <
>> jb@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
>>
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com>.
Isn't "master" hardcoded in `git` binary - when you create an empty git
repo?
$ cd /data/tmp/
$ mkdir x
$ cd x
$ git init
Initialized empty Git repository in /data/tmp/x/.git/
$ git branch -vv
$ git commit --allow-empty -m 'Initial commit'
[master (root-commit) f402a8e] Initial commit
$ git branch -vv
* master f402a8e Initial commit
regards
Grzegorz Grzybek
pon., 27 lip 2020 o 15:21 Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net> napisał(a):
> It sounds good, main is fine.
>
> I will do the rename and update documentation/website.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:55, Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>
> a écrit :
> >
> > May be we could use the new github default branch name "main".
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > François
> > fpapon@apache.org
> >
> > Le 27/07/2020 à 14:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit :
> >> Yes, I forgot to mention this. I was about to propose develop branch
> instead of master branch.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:37, Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>
> a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> Should we also rename "master" branch on git?
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>>
> >>> François
> >>> fpapon@apache.org
> >>>
> >>> Le 27/07/2020 à 13:57, Achim Nierbeck a écrit :
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> and wherever it fits best.
> >>>> Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give hints
> in
> >>>> the current documentation already?
> >>>>
> >>>> regards, Achim
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian Lange <
> >>>> lange.fabian@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be
> okay with
> >>>>> this being even in 4.2.x
> >>>>> Even when not backwards compatible
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fabian
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <
> jb@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
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
It sounds good, main is fine.
I will do the rename and update documentation/website.
Regards
JB
> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:55, Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr> a écrit :
>
> May be we could use the new github default branch name "main".
>
> regards,
>
> François
> fpapon@apache.org
>
> Le 27/07/2020 à 14:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit :
>> Yes, I forgot to mention this. I was about to propose develop branch instead of master branch.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:37, Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr> a écrit :
>>>
>>> Should we also rename "master" branch on git?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> François
>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>
>>> Le 27/07/2020 à 13:57, Achim Nierbeck a écrit :
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> and wherever it fits best.
>>>> Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give hints in
>>>> the current documentation already?
>>>>
>>>> regards, Achim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian Lange <
>>>> lange.fabian@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be okay with
>>>>> this being even in 4.2.x
>>>>> Even when not backwards compatible
>>>>>
>>>>> Fabian
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
May be we could use the new github default branch name "main".
regards,
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 27/07/2020 à 14:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit :
> Yes, I forgot to mention this. I was about to propose develop branch instead of master branch.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:37, Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr> a écrit :
>>
>> Should we also rename "master" branch on git?
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> François
>> fpapon@apache.org
>>
>> Le 27/07/2020 à 13:57, Achim Nierbeck a écrit :
>>> +1
>>>
>>> and wherever it fits best.
>>> Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give hints in
>>> the current documentation already?
>>>
>>> regards, Achim
>>>
>>>
>>> Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian Lange <
>>> lange.fabian@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be okay with
>>>> this being even in 4.2.x
>>>> Even when not backwards compatible
>>>>
>>>> Fabian
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Yes, I forgot to mention this. I was about to propose develop branch instead of master branch.
Regards
JB
> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 14:37, Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr> a écrit :
>
> Should we also rename "master" branch on git?
>
> regards,
>
> François
> fpapon@apache.org
>
> Le 27/07/2020 à 13:57, Achim Nierbeck a écrit :
>> +1
>>
>> and wherever it fits best.
>> Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give hints in
>> the current documentation already?
>>
>> regards, Achim
>>
>>
>> Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian Lange <
>> lange.fabian@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be okay with
>>> this being even in 4.2.x
>>> Even when not backwards compatible
>>>
>>> Fabian
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@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
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
Should we also rename "master" branch on git?
regards,
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 27/07/2020 à 13:57, Achim Nierbeck a écrit :
> +1
>
> and wherever it fits best.
> Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give hints in
> the current documentation already?
>
> regards, Achim
>
>
> Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian Lange <
> lange.fabian@gmail.com>:
>
>> +1
>>
>> as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be okay with
>> this being even in 4.2.x
>> Even when not backwards compatible
>>
>> Fabian
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@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
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1
Cheers,
Jamie
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:27 AM Achim Nierbeck
<bc...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> and wherever it fits best.
> Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give hints in
> the current documentation already?
>
> regards, Achim
>
>
> Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian Lange <
> lange.fabian@gmail.com>:
>
> > +1
> >
> > as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be okay with
> > this being even in 4.2.x
> > Even when not backwards compatible
> >
> > Fabian
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@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
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Apache Member
> Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
> OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer &
> Project Lead
> blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
> Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com.INVALID>.
+1
and wherever it fits best.
Make sure the documentation is aligned, and maybe we could give hints in
the current documentation already?
regards, Achim
Am Mo., 27. Juli 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Fabian Lange <
lange.fabian@gmail.com>:
> +1
>
> as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be okay with
> this being even in 4.2.x
> Even when not backwards compatible
>
> Fabian
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@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
>
--
Apache Member
Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer &
Project Lead
blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Fabian Lange <la...@gmail.com>.
+1
as a user of karaf 4.2 building our own distribution, we would be okay with
this being even in 4.2.x
Even when not backwards compatible
Fabian
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com>.
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 <ch...@die-schneider.net>
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 <
> jb@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
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
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 <
jb@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
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi guys,
Following this proposal, I will move forward with some PRs.
On Karaf runtime side, the two renaming are master/slave to primary/seconday and blacklist/whitelist to allowlist/denylist.
I would like to use the 4.3.0 slot to include these changes.
Regards
JB
> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 08:21, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net> a écrit :
>
> 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
Posted by Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com>.
+1
JBO - there will be XSDs to change:
-
https://github.com/apache/karaf/blob/master/features/core/src/main/java/org/apache/karaf/features/internal/model/processing/FeaturesProcessing.java#L71-L83
-
https://github.com/apache/karaf/blob/master/features/core/src/main/resources/org/apache/karaf/features/karaf-features-processing-1.0.0.xsd#L37-L39
regards
Grzegorz Grzybek
pon., 27 lip 2020 o 08:45 Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net> napisał(a):
> Hi,
>
> I would like to use the next major release to do the change (4.3.0), as
> it’s not really backward compatible.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 27 juil. 2020 à 08:44, Serge Huber <sh...@apache.org> a écrit :
> >
> > +1, I've also been looking at this for Apache Unomi.
> >
> > Will you do this in minor or major updates?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Serge...
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@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
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi,
I would like to use the next major release to do the change (4.3.0), as it’s not really backward compatible.
Regards
JB
> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 08:44, Serge Huber <sh...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> +1, I've also been looking at this for Apache Unomi.
>
> Will you do this in minor or major updates?
>
> Regards,
> Serge...
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Serge Huber <sh...@apache.org>.
+1, I've also been looking at this for Apache Unomi.
Will you do this in minor or major updates?
Regards,
Serge...
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Renaming terms
Posted by Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com>.
+1
Thanks JB!
Freeman
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@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