Pack has two means as a noun, we could tell a good story with it :) 1. a group of wild animals, especially wolves, living and hunting together. 2. a small cardboard or paper container and the items contained within it.
Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:09 PM 赵俊 <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have’t understand pack meaning before, thanks for explain. > I think pack which represents feature enhance like windows service pack at > first time. > > > > On Nov 20, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Willem Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >> > >> >
