If we put them all together, we cannot name it as Saga. It could confuse the user. But I don't want to rename the Saga repo, as lot of people already know about it.
Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:45 PM bismy <bi...@qq.com> wrote: > > Can we put them all in one project so that we can release all components > together? > > > We can separate them in different modules in saga project. > > > I think we can use SAGA as the name for this project which implements BASE > transactions(saga, tcc, etc. ) although saga is one of them in history. > > > ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------ > 发件人: "willem.jiang"<willem.ji...@gmail.com>; > 发送时间: 2018年10月23日(星期二) 晚上7:31 > 收件人: "dev"<dev@servicecomb.apache.org>; > > 主题: Re: Is saga named right? > > > > Yeah, that is exactly what I'm thinking about. > The new git repo could be Pack, we can implement different Transaction > protocal there. > And the current Saga code could have a dependency of it or we just > move the Pack related code to Pack repo. > > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:28 PM Zheng Feng <zh.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think the core implementation of TCC and Saga (Pack) have the same > > things, such as the similar annotations and the event names. So does it > > make sense to have the common core module to implement the transaction > > context, transaction event and the grpc communication protocol ? > > And we could provide the different APIs or annotations for both the TCC and > > the Saga or maybe the other distribute transaction protocol. Also we could > > make a new roadmap to make it as a framework used in the microservice to > > resolve the transaction things. > > > > Anyway, I totally agree with Willem to separate the TCC and the Saga codes > > at the first step. And what is the next ? Maybe we need a new name for the > > repo ? > > > > Regards, > > Zheng Feng > > > > Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> 于2018年10月23日周二 下午2:54写道： > > > > > Hi Team， > > > > > > As TCC is quite different with the Saga implementation. > > > I'm planning to move the Pack code and TCC related code out of Saga repo. > > > In this way we can just keep Saga repo to have the implementation for > > > Saga. > > > > > > Any thought？ > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:27 PM Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Yeah, once we plan to support the TCC in the Saga project , we need to > > > consider to rename the project name. > > > > Current we have two different implementation of Saga, one is centric > > > Saga, the other is based the Pack (Omega/Alpha). > > > > Now we implement the TCC protocol on top of Pack architecture. > > > > > > > > Maybe we can rearrange the package name base on this Architecture and > > > move the Pack code to another repo. > > > > Any thought? > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:09 PM fu chengeng <oliug...@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi all. > > > >> as we all knows that,saga is a kind of transaction agreement,And we > > > named this project as saga because we support only this kind of agreement. > > > >> But now,we are going to support tcc, and maybe many other > > > transaction agreement like xa will be supported. > > > >> Whether we should change saga to other name to prevent confused > > > when it is in incubating? > > > >> > > > >> > > >
