3 ms·
.... this is simply lame, the master/slave term describes perfectly fine the relationship between the parts, and leader/follower is a bit more vague, since a fo
by Tehnix 12y ago
.... this is simply lame, the master/slave term describes perfectly fine the relationship between the parts, and leader/follower is a bit more vague, since a follower is during it voluntarily, while the slave adheres to the masters rules... At least how I see it.
I'd say this is just plain being oversensitive...
- seandougall 12y agoLeader/follower isn't what they went with; as noted elsewhere, they used primary/replica instead. Master/slave also doesn't accurately describe it beyond a very superficial level, and its historical usage doesn't make it any more apt. In distributed systems, the primary does not sit back while forcibly delegating all its productivity.