Re: [PROPOSAL] Non-canonical alignment for shared and replicated state terminology

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>]

Hi Matt,

thanks for the proposal.

Personally, I'm still skeptical about this kind of changes for 
"technical wording".

If we really want to change, I think active/passive is the most accurate 
for kahadb/store HA, both runtime mode and status. Anyway, in ActiveMQ, 
we don't have concrete wording in the configuration (it's more in the code).

So, +1 with the proposal, +0 for change (I see more drawback than benefit).

Regards
JB

On 7/12/21 7:40 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> [Abstract]
> 
>      ActiveMQ 5 and Artemis are both re-working legacy terminology to better describe function and move away from problematic language for shared storage and replication terminology indicators.
> 
> [Background]
> 
>      JIRA discussion: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514>
>      Mailing list: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Draft-proposal-for-terminology-change-td4758351.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Draft-proposal-for-terminology-change-td4758351.html>
> 
> [Proposal]
> 
>      P-1. Broker layer will maintain a status— ‘active’ or ’standby’ based on signals from persistence layer
>   
>      P-2. Persistence layer will optionally provide a noun and verb based on the underlying technology's terminology.
> 
>      P-3. ActiveMQ project created persistence layers that support replication, the terminology should attempt to provide noun and verb terms to describe the mode and state.
>              Mode: ‘primary’ and ‘replica’
>              Status: ‘active’ and ’standby'
> 
> [Scope]
> 
>      S-1. Terminology alignment between ActiveMQ 5 and Artemis is only for shared storage, replicated storage, broker status, and future terms.
> 
> [Benefits]
> 
>      B-1. Terms for Broker state will be aligned between ActiveMQ 5 and Artemis free of problematic language.
> 
>      B-2. Terms for replication will bubble up “as-is” based on the underlying persistence layer technology.
> 
>      B-3. If both ActiveMQ 5 and Artemis use the same replication tech, then terms will be aligned.
> 
>      B-4. If one provides a persistence layer adapter that the other does not there is no phantom noun or verb present on the other broker that has no direct technical meaning
> 
> [Rationale]
> 
>     R-1. Attempting to create common terms may leave one broker with a phantom term that has no meaning
>   
>     R-2. Attempting to create common terms is problematic when two supported persistence adapter layer technology use different terms (leader / follower, vs primary / replica).
> 
>     R-3. Renaming terminology that is not problematic for the sake of alignment (ie. acceptor vs transportConnector) unfairly creates burden on the existing user base.
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> -Matt Pavlovich
> 
> 

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com