+1 to rename the ServiceComb-Saga to ServiceComb-Pack. But I have two questions, 1. What is the plan for the git repo servicecomb-saga-actuator hosted the old saga implementation? 2. What is the Roadmap for the new repo ServiceComb-Pack?
I think we should have some reasonable reasons to show with the followers if we want to change the repo name. If we can give the Roadmap after renaming, we can use this opportunity to promote the ServiceComb-Pack Roadmap to the developers and users. Best Regards, --- Zen Lin zenlintechnofr...@gmail.com Focused on Micro Service and Apache ServiceComb 赵俊 <zhaoju...@jd.com> 于2018年11月20日周二 下午3:05写道： > it’s wonderful ：） > > > On Nov 20, 2018, at 2:02 PM, Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 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 <zhaoju...@jd.com> 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 <willem.ji...@gmail.com> > 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 <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? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >
