Thanks for Yuhao raising this good point. In my opinion, both ACL and transaction are important to Dubbo, and the community keep demanding the support on these areas. We should put them in our roadmap.
Thanks, -Ian. On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:55 PM Yuhao Bi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi lan and community, > > Although I have already heard "Dubbo" a few years ago, > but I just started to learn dubbo after the meetup last year in Chengdu > after it became the Apache Dubbo. > Maybe I'm not such that familiar with the underlying details, but after > the continuous participated > I feel like a part of the community, and free to share my opinion. > > So, here is my question and also consider it my suggestion: > Should we care more about Security? How can we prevent from unauthorized > remote call? > - Should we support Authentication and Authorization > - Should we add Spring Security or Active Directory Service support at the > framework level > > Thanks, > Yuhao > > > jun liu <[email protected]> 于2019年1月22日周二 下午5:50写道： > > > > 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] > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
