> On Jul 27, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > “Followers" have a choice which does not apply here. > > The second stage of a flip-flop has no choice. > > The metaphor has to allow arbitrary behaviour of the first stage and zero choice to anything but obedience for the second stage. Slaves can revolt. The first stage is not unconstrained either. It issues a trigger with a response, that’s all. Actor/reactor thus would cover your desired connotation. Joe > > - Stewart > >> On 27 Jul 2020, at 17:31, Joseph Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> FWIW, for flip-flops, leader/follower works too. >> >>>> On Jul 27, 2020, at 5:35 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> I see how that properly describes the relative authority of the two components. >>> >>> I always prefer to use a h/w flip-flop to visualise the behaviour. >>> >>> I am fine with moving to a new name provided we captures the actual behaviour. >>> >>> Stewart >>> >>>> On 26 Jul 2020, at 22:49, Joseph Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jul 26, 2020, at 2:32 PM, Jay Daley <jay@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> A question I can’t resolve by Googling - has anyone attempted to create entirely new words to represent the concepts that master or slave have been used to represent? e.g. a word that means "authoritative source of data that has no dependency on another source" and has no other meaning? >>>> >>>> Why aren’t either primary or authoritative vs. copy/secondary/replica sufficient? >>>> >>>> Joe >>> >> >
