3 ms·

At the same time, "primary/replica" is just as well easily understood, and the change is easy to make. If making the change makes it marginally easier for minor

At the same time, "primary/replica" is just as well easily understood, and the change is easy to make. If making the change makes it marginally easier for minority participation, and you want your user base to grow, why not make the change?

claudius 12y ago
Except that primary/replica is of course not a drop-in replacement for master/slave (just think of the two devices per IDE bus). Furthermore, it is trivial to find offence in the word “primary” as well, especially in a context where master/slave was used previously, just think of “primus inter pares”.
- Symmetry 12y ago
  It might not be a drop in replacement in all circumstances, but it is in the case under discussion. I don't think anyone in this discussion would support using primary/replicant for IDE busses, and bringing them up here is really just a straw man. You can't avoid ever offending someone, but in this case you can reduce the amount of offence caused by a small but significant amount at basically no cost.
chrismcb 12y ago
Easily understood by whom? How does "main" and "copies" imply the same thing that "master" and "slave" implies? There is nothing in the words "replica" or "secondary" that implies the "primary" controls the others. Server/client is perhaps the best replacement, but even that has slightly different connotations (especially today) "replica" and "secondary" are horrible choice for replacements.
- jldugger 12y ago
  > There is nothing in the words "replica" or "secondary" that implies the "primary" controls the others. rep·li·ca [rep-li-kuh] noun 1. a copy or reproduction of a work of art produced by the maker of the original or under his or her supervision. 2. any close or exact copy or reproduction. Things we would call replicas cannot exist without an original. But you're right, there's no control involved in the word. Could you please explain how replication involves a primary controlling replicas, or perhaps how the absence of a controlling primary node matters?

claudius 12y ago

Except that primary/replica is of course not a drop-in replacement for master/slave (just think of the two devices per IDE bus). Furthermore, it is trivial to find offence in the word “primary” as well, especially in a context where master/slave was used previously, just think of “primus inter pares”.

Symmetry 12y ago
It might not be a drop in replacement in all circumstances, but it is in the case under discussion. I don't think anyone in this discussion would support using primary/replicant for IDE busses, and bringing them up here is really just a straw man. You can't avoid ever offending someone, but in this case you can reduce the amount of offence caused by a small but significant amount at basically no cost.

chrismcb 12y ago

Easily understood by whom? How does "main" and "copies" imply the same thing that "master" and "slave" implies? There is nothing in the words "replica" or "secondary" that implies the "primary" controls the others. Server/client is perhaps the best replacement, but even that has slightly different connotations (especially today) "replica" and "secondary" are horrible choice for replacements.

jldugger 12y ago
> There is nothing in the words "replica" or "secondary" that implies the "primary" controls the others. rep·li·ca [rep-li-kuh] noun 1. a copy or reproduction of a work of art produced by the maker of the original or under his or her supervision. 2. any close or exact copy or reproduction. Things we would call replicas cannot exist without an original. But you're right, there's no control involved in the word. Could you please explain how replication involves a primary controlling replicas, or perhaps how the absence of a controlling primary node matters?