I have’t understand pack meaning before, thanks for explain. I think pack which represents feature enhance like windows service pack at first time.
> On Nov 20, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Cherry， > > servicecomb-saga-actuator is just for the centrical saga implementation. > We will rename the servicecomb-saga to servicecomb-pack, as I prefer > the name of pack which shows the spirit of DTS (Distributed > Transaction Service), Omega report the status, and the Alpha take the > control of everything. > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:21 AM cherrylzhao <zhaoju...@126.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, Willem >> >> I think servicecomb-dts or servicecomb-dtx is better. >> And we can keep the old saga package same as before. >> >>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Please let me know what your think about this. Either way I will >>> start a vote for the repository change shortly this week. >>> >>> Willem Jiang >>> >>> Twitter: willemjiang >>> Weibo: 姜宁willem >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:57 AM Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Now the Saga 0.2.x branch is ready for the release, we will start the >>>> rename process after the release. >>>> At the meantime I planning to create new git repo >>>> servicecomb-saga-actuator to host the old saga implementation. >>>> >>>> Willem Jiang >>>> >>>> Twitter: willemjiang >>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:32 PM Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Agree we need the migration document for it. >>>>> >>>>> There are lots change in the 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT, if we want the user use >>>>> the new added transports, we may need to back port those patch to >>>>> 0.2.0 branch. >>>>> >>>>> Willem Jiang >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: willemjiang >>>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Zheng Feng <zh.f...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> 于2018年11月14日周三 下午5:13写道： >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we can keep the annotation there , but mark it as deprecated >>>>>>> and add the new annotation there. So there could be a very big change >>>>>>> on the customer project. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I agree that could be a problem with upgrading from the old version and >>>>>> should be very clear explain in the documentation. >>>>>> >>>>>> We could consider to remove the old implementation in the Pack 0.4.0 >>>>>>> release. Beside the the package rename, we also need to rename the >>>>>>> artifacts group id. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I think we need to change the major version if we rename the package and >>>>>> group id. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or we can do the 0.2.x release for new added transport components. >>>>>>> >>>>>> 0.2.x ? sorry, I think we are in 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT currently. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Willem Jiang >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Twitter: willemjiang >>>>>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:22 PM Zheng Feng <zh.f...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> comments inline, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> 于2018年11月14日周三 上午10:39写道： >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we rename the package, it will break the compatible of the java >>>>>>>> annotations ? How about the next release plan ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Create a new github repo servicecomb-saga-engine to remain the old >>>>>>> saga >>>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It looks good to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>
