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. 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.
Or we can do the 0.2.x release for new added transport components. 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? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
