Closed woodsaj closed 8 years ago
Comment by nopzor1200
Wednesday Jul 01, 2015 at 18:47 GMT
I don't disagree with this at all, I actually voted for probe as my first choice in the summit. What did you vote for?
It's just a pain in the ass to rename it everywhere obviously.
The cincher for me was hearing @woodsaj describe Litmus and say "you install our collector software which are probes..."
Would be curious what others think at this point.
Comment by Dieterbe
Wednesday Jul 01, 2015 at 18:57 GMT
What did you vote for?
i don't remember for sure, but I think probe. Now that you mention it, I think at summit we decided to stick with the name "for now" as it would be too much work to change. I think we should just change it, at least in the docs/UI. it can't be that much work, right? the longer we wait the harder it becomes. for the software, we can just adopt the new term when we do the golang rewrite.
Comment by nopzor1200
Wednesday Jul 01, 2015 at 19:19 GMT
probe was my number #1 choice sensor was my number #2 choice collector was my number #3 choice
Comment by mattttt
Wednesday Jul 01, 2015 at 19:20 GMT
To memorialize, though I cant remember why, Collector was my #1 choice - but I'm cool with renaming to Probe if we think it's the better choice.
Comment by nopzor1200
Tuesday Jul 28, 2015 at 18:11 GMT
Adam touched base with me via text just now to continue the discussion about Packet helping with the rewrite of the "probe software"
Comment by woodsaj
Wednesday Aug 05, 2015 at 04:23 GMT
I cant remember why i was against probe and so I see no problem with renaming.
In that effort i have created https://github.com/raintank/raintank-probe which contains the the rewrite in Go of the collector.
Comment by nopzor1200
Wednesday Aug 05, 2015 at 04:27 GMT
OK, let's rename it to probe. I think it's a good call.
Obviously implications across the board @dieterbe @mattttt @bulletfactory in how we reference stuff and frontend.
@woodsaj its probably a PITA but can you refactor things in our collector software to reference probe instead (across the board...)
Comment by woodsaj
Wednesday Aug 05, 2015 at 06:21 GMT
This is a big job, but achievable
From a quick review of the code the following will need to be done:
Changes will also need to be made in raintank-collector while we transition to the all Go version
Comment by bulletfactory
Wednesday Aug 05, 2015 at 15:17 GMT
And just when I was about to start referring to the new collectors written in Go as "gollectors".
Comment by woodsaj
Wednesday Nov 04, 2015 at 10:46 GMT
So i now remember why i preferred collector:
As the raintank platform is built out new capabilities will be added to the "collector" code base. Some things i see it doing:
So "Collector" might not be the best name, but i dont think that probe is any better.
The collector needs to be rewritten soon, and this will also involve a re-architecture to allow extending its capabilities over time. The way i see it working is that the "collector" is the base entity that "collects" data from various sources and transmits it back to app.raintank.io. This entity will have a list of "capabilities" that it registers when connecting. Through the UI we can assign litmus checks to collectors with the capability "litmus-probe" and assign cloudwatch collection to a collector with the capability "CloudWatch"
Comment by mattttt
Friday Nov 06, 2015 at 23:32 GMT
Spoke with @nopzor1200 yesterday IRL, decision is to change Collector to Probe everywhere in the front-end, but keep the raintank collector software named that.
Will make the changes within the interface and highlight any inconsistencies/confusion on this issue.
Comment by mattttt
Monday Nov 09, 2015 at 22:44 GMT
From this point forward, Collectors are now to be referred to as Probes. This is a pretty substantial task in the backend, but not so much in the frontend.
branch: goodbye-collector
Instances of the word collector in the entire repo: 843 matches across 38 files
Comment by nopzor1200
Saturday Nov 21, 2015 at 01:32 GMT
I'm fine keeping collector in the backend for now. Awoods brings up good points about how the software itself could evolve to be more collector-like instead of probe-like.
But, for Litmus, I think we're making the right decision, and good job on the change @mattttt and I really really like the probe icon that @bulletfactory whipped up. In Litmus parlance and context, it's easier to think of things as "probes" as opposed to "collectors". I feel very strongly about that point.
No urgency or rush at the moment to refactor the backend to change collectors to probes.
i've been thinking and feeling this out for a little while now. I don't think "collector" is a very appropriate word for what our collectors do. What do collectors collect, really? It's not like they collect metrics or measurements from the endpoints. In fact they generate the metrics themselves. The only things they collect are their configuration (not a significant feature that should drive their naming) and responses to the requests they execute (which is only a small part of what they do, and is also an awkward part to be named for)
instead, i propose "probe"
The name "probe" is IMHO a lot more representative of the main logic performed by our collector: small application that examines something and provides measurements bonus point: only 5 letters instead of 9 :)
To change this in order of priority: