Well, this is the first time I hear about the story of the PACK name. I like the meaning of a group of wild animals and it is really cool !
Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> 于2018年11月20日周二 上午6:02写道： > Pack has two means as a noun, we could tell a good story with it :) > 1. a group of wild animals, especially wolves, living and hunting together. > 2. a small cardboard or paper container and the items contained within it. > > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:09 PM 赵俊 <zhaoju...@jd.com> wrote: > > > > 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? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >> > > >> > > >
