As we discussed, Here is the proposal of the github rename for the
distribute transaction
1. Rename servicecomb-saga -> servicecomb-pack to keep all the starts,
and we need to rename the package name to pack.
If the user use the old link of saga, it will be redirect to
servicecomb-pack
2. Create a new github repo servicecomb-saga-engine to remain the old saga stuff
Any thought? If it is OK , I will start a vote for it at the end of this week.
Willem Jiang
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: 姜宁willem
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:22 PM Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sure, I just create a JIRA[1] for it.
> [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SCB-976
>
> Willem Jiang
>
> Twitter: willemjiang
> Weibo: 姜宁willem
> On Tue, Oct 23, 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?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > >
