comments inline, Willem Jiang <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Willem, > > > > > > Can you create a JIRA for this moving and it could make it much clear > in > > > the description ? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Willem Jiang <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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"<[email protected]>; > > > > > 发送时间: 2018年10月23日(星期二) 晚上7:31 > > > > > 收件人: "dev"<[email protected]>; > > > > > > > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > [email protected]> > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
