--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/fb3a5d07-2821-49f2-bef3-3f847423010bn%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/KrK47t_Dm0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/95c1d675-aa3a-40fe-9a4c-a3473c40a364n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/a0933e60-e53c-458d-bff8-9502eb3754e8n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/a0933e60-e53c-458d-bff8-9502eb3754e8n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/a0933e60-e53c-458d-bff8-9502eb3754e8n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CACXiNjbSOrT1ki9L7emzbLrr0U1sstyGeNLmvHG2TpOrHY2E3A%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/7D31D179-53E6-48A0-BD12-7731545C6D91%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAECq3A8jOSLCfeRmqmmSx-%3D5ibYTU3AE8YpZ353jsoZWSADunw%40mail.gmail.com.
Mark, I think you meant to reply to this thread rather than just me. By the way, I disagree with this extra requirement for multiple implementations to exist in order for a spec to be released. I think it should be discussed under a different thread as it is not directly related to this thread. One thing I would like to point out is that some runtime will implement the spec after the spec was finalized.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAECq3A8jOSLCfeRmqmmSx-%3D5ibYTU3AE8YpZ353jsoZWSADunw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/041191a5-0f4f-4a17-b7aa-833ebe1a55aan%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAKeeVe7KnPGN00%3DUN1F3SdesTPgWyzX2ZumKGBkuWrWuy9nAVg%40mail.gmail.com.
I would add: OpenTelemetry is _already_ a spec. Do we need another one?
A specification body is not the place to experiment with new technology for the first time and come up with a spec at the same time. Maybe it makes sense to have a group playing in the MP Sandbox with ideas, that's fine, but creating an MP OpenTelemetry call, an MP OpenTelemetry repository, etc, has implicitly indicated a specification WILL come out of it. And I just don't see that as being the case at present.If vendors are waiting for others to implement OpenTelemetry first, then maybe it's a good thing for MP to wait as well.Totally agree there hasn't been much happening around OpenTelemetry in MP, but that's because we've been working with the OpenTelemetry Java community on solving any issues.A specification should be a place to align different vendors towards a common solution. Right now, that's happening in OpenTelemetry as most APM vendors (Datadog, Splunk, Honeycomb, New Relic, Lightstep, etc) are all working in the OpenTelemetry communities to coalesce around a common solution. If MP doesn't become a part of that community and help drive solutions to our problems, we risk coming up with a lopsided solution that might suit MP vendors but doesn't gel with the wider OpenTelemetry community.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CACXiNjZZVSj6cGy-%3DL8V37FUeT%2BAbzYTLXwA9qL9GA_Dofuy1A%40mail.gmail.com.
On May 21, 2021, at 5:46 PM, 'Emily Jiang' via MicroProfile <microp...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> I would add: OpenTelemetry is _already_ a spec. Do we need another one?>OpenAPI, Open Tracing are also specs. MP OpenAPI, MP Open Tracing were created by trying to bring these specs to cloud native world:o. Hence the need to look at OpenTelemetry.As Bruno pointed out, since MP OpenTracing is pretty dead technology. We need to look whethher and how to swap it out and replace with the successor which is OpenTelemetry.The group gets together to brainstrom and tries to look for a way how to get OpenTelemetry to replace OpenTracing. This is open community. Why not encourage people come together to solve a common problem? I would be quite worried if developers were told not to get together to work on a problem. Maybe at the end of the experiment, the group conclude just using OpenTelemetry directly and here is why. That is also something useful. On the other hand, maybe the best way is to use what the current MP OpenTracing way to consume OpenTelemetry. There are many outcomes. Some time and effort need to be spent to answer the questions of whether, why, hows.EmilyOn Friday, May 21, 2021 at 4:44:07 PM UTC+1 Bruno Baptista wrote:
On 21/05/21 13:12, Erin Schnabel wrote:
> I would add: OpenTelemetry is _already_ a spec. Do we need another one?
>
I think Erin's point is important.
MP OpenTracing was also based on an existing spec. I don't think this is
about having just one implementation, it's about creating a standard
Java way to interact with the existing OpenTelemetry spec.
I'm concerned on using MP OpenTracing, which has no future now. I would
prefer to have an evolution and be able to use it.
Also, the new standard could be used to instrument other MP specs, if
needed, in the way we use MP Config.
In this case, having just one implementation is not very important
because there is a Standard already, we should just define how to use it
in Java.
Cheers
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/63a9c742-fa8f-4880-9c03-e6f3221de5f2n%40googlegroups.com.
On 21 May 2021, at 22:46, 'Emily Jiang' via MicroProfile <microp...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> I would add: OpenTelemetry is _already_ a spec. Do we need another one?>OpenAPI, Open Tracing are also specs. MP OpenAPI, MP Open Tracing were created by trying to bring these specs to cloud native world:o. Hence the need to look at OpenTelemetry.As Bruno pointed out, since MP OpenTracing is pretty dead technology. We need to look whethher and how to swap it out and replace with the successor which is OpenTelemetry.The group gets together to brainstrom and tries to look for a way how to get OpenTelemetry to replace OpenTracing. This is open community. Why not encourage people come together to solve a common problem? I would be quite worried if developers were told not to get together to work on a problem. Maybe at the end of the experiment, the group conclude just using OpenTelemetry directly and here is why. That is also something useful. On the other hand, maybe the best way is to use what the current MP OpenTracing way to consume OpenTelemetry. There are many outcomes. Some time and effort need to be spent to answer the questions of whether, why, hows.EmilyOn Friday, May 21, 2021 at 4:44:07 PM UTC+1 Bruno Baptista wrote:
On 21/05/21 13:12, Erin Schnabel wrote:
> I would add: OpenTelemetry is _already_ a spec. Do we need another one?
>
I think Erin's point is important.
MP OpenTracing was also based on an existing spec. I don't think this is
about having just one implementation, it's about creating a standard
Java way to interact with the existing OpenTelemetry spec.
I'm concerned on using MP OpenTracing, which has no future now. I would
prefer to have an evolution and be able to use it.
Also, the new standard could be used to instrument other MP specs, if
needed, in the way we use MP Config.
In this case, having just one implementation is not very important
because there is a Standard already, we should just define how to use it
in Java.
Cheers
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/63a9c742-fa8f-4880-9c03-e6f3221de5f2n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/7bf5eeb5-21db-4571-acdd-47ccc62478a3n%40googlegroups.com.
Can you use MP Config to configure opentelemetry-java-instrumentation ?
Bruno
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/9E1BE547-7D0F-4015-ABF7-478EA8DDE4E4%40gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/KrK47t_Dm0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/f13dec48-7351-2233-d5fb-847ca14f04e1%40gmail.com.
All good Erin,
This just saddens me a bit because I will soon drop the use of MP OpenTracing and move away from a MP lib, probably to never come back...
Bruno
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAJwjk9xw2B12D_XW42PBTc9z7HVs08EpBES2giNJaa%2B6fNnuYA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/e9a1c9e4-0537-7c60-3316-b2846463a95e%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAJwjk9yvdcyBiP1Gzb3-5bAexGg%2BnXnCvKQP7xGicwz11jqCow%40mail.gmail.com.
On May 26, 2021, at 6:23 AM, Ken Finnigan <k...@kenfinnigan.me> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAKeeVe4atuvOyOCrTen-VqvpnJTumfNSWg9wyHbj5HJd63L_%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAKeeVe4atuvOyOCrTen-VqvpnJTumfNSWg9wyHbj5HJd63L_%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
Hi All,
I think it's wise to have an OpenTelemetry group to explore
without the promise of a MP OpenTelemtry spec.
As someone suggested, it might be preferable to just contribute to OpenTelemtry directly. We need to hack around it.
Anyway, Observability is key to cloud native apps and MP should do some work around it. To start with, a working group for OpenTelemetry would be great.
Cheers
Bruno
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/2845574e-09da-4092-bdc4-cd54dc0eabacn%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/c4b22cb4-9d14-3319-fc2f-32aab6974136%40gmail.com.