Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4607CEDAE for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 07:26:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 4492 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2013 07:26:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 4438 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2013 07:26:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 4415 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jan 2013 07:26:54 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 07:26:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [212.242.43.251] (HELO smtp1.cybercity.dk) (212.242.43.251) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 07:26:45 +0000 Received: from uf6.cybercity.dk (uf6.cybercity.dk [212.242.42.50]) by smtp1.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35BE2108933 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 08:26:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from Per-Steffensens-MacBook-Pro-2.local (port545.ds1-rd.adsl.cybercity.dk [212.242.185.110]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uf6.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 129983F409 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 08:26:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50E6841D.9000309@designware.dk> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 08:26:21 +0100 From: Per Steffensen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs... References: <50E59B1B.1070508@designware.dk> <50E59D3F.6010707@designware.dk> <2976F50F-092C-4848-B6ED-045FE51C9867@gmail.com> <50E5A6DA.40201@designware.dk> <39DFBA36-397F-4FFB-A0DC-90758FE5DC27@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <39DFBA36-397F-4FFB-A0DC-90758FE5DC27@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 1/3/13 4:55 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > Trying to forge our own path here seems more confusing than helpful > IMO. We have enough issues with terminology right now - where we can > go with the industry standard, I think we should. - Mark Fair enough. I dont think our biggest problem is whether we decide to call it Replica/replicationFactor or ShardInstance/InstancesPerShard. Our biggest problem is that we really havent decided once and for all and made sure to reflect the decision consistently across code and documentation. As long as we havnt I believe it is still ok to change our minds.