Hi Cherry， servicecomb-saga-actuator is just for the centrical saga implementation. We will rename the servicecomb-saga to servicecomb-pack, as I prefer the name of pack which shows the spirit of DTS (Distributed Transaction Service), Omega report the status, and the Alpha take the control of everything.
Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:21 AM cherrylzhao <zhaoju...@126.com> wrote: > > 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 <willem.ji...@gmail.com> 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 <willem.ji...@gmail.com> 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 <willem.ji...@gmail.com> > >> 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 <zh.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> 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 <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? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >
