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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Willem Jiang <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>
