Actually Indexer and Searcher is the terminology we used for
our home
grown Lucene solution we're evaluating Solr against. Good
point.
Even beyond avoiding words with baggage, or even worst,
overloaded/ambiguous terms (like Service), coming up with
meaningful
terminology is often a challenge. Rename is one of my
favorite
refactorings. 
Paul Sundling
-----Original Message-----
From: yseeley gmail.com [mailto:yseeleygmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik
Seeley
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:10 PM
To: solr-devlucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Master/Slave and Primary/Secondary
As it pertains to Solr, I've often used Master and Searcher.
Probably
even more correct would be Indexer and Searcher. Primary and
Secondary
don't quite sound right for the Solr situation... (but
Master and Slave
doesn't capture it any better either).
-Yonik
On 7/26/07, Sundling, Paul <paul.sundlingsonyconnect.com> wrote:
> When I started computing it was always Master and
Slave. In the last
> several years I've seen people use Primary and
Secondary instead.
> When I saw the old style I looked it up and this is
what I found:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_%28computers%
29
>
> http://www.techspot.com/news/9129-master-a
nd-slave-computer-labels-una
> cc
> eptable.html
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/26/1069825847
240.html
>
> Is it was worth changing the terminology from
master/slave to
> primary/secondary?
>
> My personal feeling is that the original impetus behind
some of the
> change was ridiculous, but it's a simple change to
make. Consider
> this a thought bubble, not a request.
>
> Paul Sundling
>
|