> I think the online integration test and performance test environment should > be set up for the new features.
Agree! We should start as soon as possible, from 2.7.x. Jun > On Jan 22, 2019, at 5:43 PM, Xin Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think the online integration test and performance test environment should > be set up for the new features. > > Ian Luo <[email protected]> 于2019年1月22日周二 下午3:04写道： > >> Yuhao, good idea. >> >> BTW, do you have any thought on what Dubbo 3.0 should be? >> >> Thanks, >> -Ian. >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:39 PM Yuhao Bi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Once we have decided what to do in the next. >>> Should we have a website page to publish it? e.g. [1] >>> >>> [1]. https://phoenix.apache.org/roadmap.html >>> >>> yuneng xie <[email protected]> 于2019年1月22日周二 下午2:25写道： >>> >>>> Hi Ian Luo, >>>> >>>> OK, i'd start to work on it soon. >>>> >>>> Ian Luo <[email protected]> 于2019年1月17日周四 下午2:01写道： >>>> >>>>> Hi Yuneng, >>>>> >>>>> Sounds interesting. I am especially interested in reactive >> programming >>>>> support. Pls. go ahead to try implement it on 3.x branch. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> -Ian. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:03 AM yuneng xie <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> I agreed with Ian Luo on the improvement list. I also got some idea >>> in >>>> my >>>>>> mind. I'd just share with you two points below in detail which i'm >>>> most >>>>>> interested in right now. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Upgrade the core abstraction "Invoker", which works in sync >> mode, >>>> to >>>>> an >>>>>> abstraction works in async mode. then we can construct >>>>>> InvocationChain/FilterChain that works in async mode. A core >>>> abstraction >>>>>> works in async mode would simplify the sync/async logic. We no >>> longer >>>>> need >>>>>> to repeat the logic about sync-mode/async-mode in each >>> ProtocolInvoker. >>>>>> ProtocolInvoker could concentrate on async logic and we could >> handle >>>>>> sync-mode invoke all in once by wrapping the AsyncInvocationChain >>> into >>>> a >>>>>> SyncInvocationChain. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Support using stream-value (Fowable, Flux...) as >>> param/returnType. >>>>>> really a nice feature. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let me known your opinion on my points. I'm also glad to >> just >>>> give >>>>>> it a try and raise a pr. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian Luo <[email protected]> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午6:00写道： >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Finally we managed to ramp down version 2.7.0 development, and >>>>> hopefully >>>>>> we >>>>>>> can start the vote in the early of the next week. But the main >>>> purpose >>>>> of >>>>>>> this email is not a release announcement. Instead, since we now >>> have >>>>>>> bandwidth, let's consider and discuss what we should focus out >> from >>>>> many >>>>>>> stuff we want to do. For example, we may focus more on issue and >>> pull >>>>>>> request on GitHub, or we may plan 2.7 minor releases immediately >>>> after >>>>> we >>>>>>> release 2.7.0. But today I'd like to bring up one longer term >> plan >>>>> which >>>>>>> I'm now caring most, that is, how we define what version 3.0 is? >>> and >>>>> when >>>>>>> can we get start on it? In my opinion, we need to start it right >>> from >>>>>> this >>>>>>> moment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I recalled Liujie Qin (@liujieqin) initialed the discussion on >> the >>>> same >>>>>>> topic [1] in July this year. I summarize his points here if you >> are >>>> too >>>>>>> impatient to read through the contents of his email :p: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Need to enhance the current extension mechanism >>>>>>> 2. Need to enhance the code base for better maintenance >>>>>>> 3. Need to support async >>>>>>> 4. Need to decouple registry server and config server >>>>>>> 5. Need to support Java8 and above so that we can use advanced >>>> features >>>>>> in >>>>>>> Dubbo's core >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with most of his points in this good proposal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here I'd like to initial a discussion on how we define Dubbo 3.0, >>> or >>>> in >>>>>> the >>>>>>> other word, how do the community expect from Dubbo 3.0. In my >>>> opinion, >>>>> I >>>>>>> think we need to answer the following questions in this major >>>> release: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Today the boundary between messaging and remoting call gets >> blur. >>>> We >>>>>> may >>>>>>> need to consider to support streaming at the protocol level. >>>>>>> - Reative programming and its fundamental FP start to get >> adopted. >>> We >>>>>>> should consider to support it. >>>>>>> - Dubbo should be redesigned to support async better, and treats >>>> async >>>>> as >>>>>>> the first class citizen. We do support async feature in 2.7.0 >>> release >>>>> but >>>>>>> it is not so perfect. >>>>>>> - Micro-services has been widely adopted. How Dubbo works >>> seamlessly >>>>> with >>>>>>> micro-services becomes a question mark. We need to look into the >>>>> inter-op >>>>>>> between Dubbo and micro-services's registry server/config server. >>> The >>>>>>> support on separating registry server and config server in 2.7.0 >>>>> release >>>>>> is >>>>>>> a good start, but there are still lots of further works remaining >>>> with >>>>> no >>>>>>> doubt. >>>>>>> - Once we conquer seamless micro-services support, we still need >> to >>>>> take >>>>>>> one step further to think about K8S integration. After all, K8S >> and >>>>>> service >>>>>>> mesh built above it are now considered the best way for >>>> micro-services >>>>>>> deployment. >>>>>>> - How we define mini-dubbo, or phrase in another way, what the >>>> minimal >>>>>>> feature set we should define for Dubbo framework. The reason >> behind >>>>> this >>>>>>> is, it is very helpful for developing more language supports from >>> the >>>>>>> community. This also means, we need to modularize Dubbo further, >> to >>>>> make >>>>>> it >>>>>>> a reference implementation for other languages. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In short, I suggest we need to focus on streaming protocol, >> Rx/FP, >>>>> native >>>>>>> async, micro-services support, refactor/modularize areas. Of >>> course, >>>>>> there >>>>>>> are more I don't mention in this email, for examples: how we make >>>> Dubbo >>>>>>> more resilient? how we support HTTP/2? and more. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pls. let me know your opinion on what I and Liujie proposed, and >>>> share >>>>>> your >>>>>>> thought on what kind of features really matter to you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> -Ian. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Proposal for Dubbo 3.0 from [email protected] on >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
