I agree with Willem So the saga repo only keep the centric implement in future. And new repo keep pack (omega/alpha) architecture, which provide different BASE protocol. We can add new distribute system feature, like introduce zk coordinate, optimize transport performance here.
> On 23 Oct 2018, at 9:34 PM, Zheng Feng <zh.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Willem, > > Can you create a JIRA for this moving and it could make it much clear in > the description ? > > Thanks, > > Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> 于2018年10月23日周二 下午9:04写道： > >> 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>
