That's why I said that they started at the wrong end! MicroServices and distributed computing in general are by definition language agnostic aka polyglot. So it's imo plain wrong to start with defining a JAVA API but _not_ defining the underlying transport mechanism.
This is like defining the Java API for HTTP but without having any HTTP specification written down yet. And of course they could have just started with a few formats, like e.g. defining the default names and format for HTTP headers, SOAP envelope tags, param names for various messaging systems, etc. The list doesn't need to be final, but with those 3 you will likely already have covered 98% of all the usage. But thy them refusing to define this it's yet another lost opportunity. Of course it's not yet too late and I still have hopes. LieGrue, strub > Am 22.05.2018 um 13:36 schrieb John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > > Dont forget that opentracing is protocol agnostic. You can use the same open > tracing libraries to span client, server, jms queues, db calls, etc. Its not > limited to HTTP. Also note my prior email RE vendor integration. > > On Tue, May 22, 2018, 7:10 AM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > This is actually the most important part and it is still not defined. > > They really started at the wrong end and it seems did not have the same > understanding of portability [1]. > Or at least they seem to not have any interest to make the impls exchangeable > but just want to push their own impls. > > So I'd say we just make the header names configurable and creat an own > default for it. > > For completeness sake: the original background can be found here [2]. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/microprofile/YxKba36lye4/c6hGiuuEBAAJ > [2] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/microprofile/fSnfHmVb_JA/r8dDnsrqFgAJ > > > > Am 21.05.2018 um 07:49 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > > John, did you see a standard http format for headers and span payloads? > > Zipkin one is quite defined but i dont find anywhere something finished for > > opentracing. > > > > Should we go with zipkin one for now and make it pluggable later? > > > > Le dim. 20 mai 2018 20:37, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> a > > écrit : > > Just got it passing, still need some "prod" work and cleanup but at least > > we have a kind of milestone and something to start with. > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > > > > Le dim. 20 mai 2018 à 10:02, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> a > > écrit : > > Ok so kind of same raw feeling but not same outcome ;). > > > > Let me try to develop what I did today - it is not complete but idea is > > here. > > > > 1. Mp spec module, mp impl as "usual" > > 2. Opentracing spec module + opentracing impl in the "impl" module (this is > > why i got this issue). I can split in an opentracing-impl module bit having > > it all CDI is quite better IMHO and efficient > > > > We can surely refactor it and split it cause the main cdi usage is to fire > > a FinishSpan event which hosts a Span and provide a natural extension point > > to plug a backend (i intend to just provide a noop and logger impls which > > would enable kafka, jdbc, .... through appenders). > > > > Then next step will be to plug config (optionally with a fallback on system > > properties) to have a finer config per endpoint (sampling). > > > > Does it sound ok? > > > > Le dim. 20 mai 2018 03:03, John D. Ament <[email protected]> a écrit : > > A while ago I tried to implement the MP Open Tracing spec and then gave up. > > The feature is really something that belongs as a part of the OpenTracing > > project, and not a vendor implementation capability. You still need a full > > tracing implementation behind it to work properly, as they are expecting > > the impl also passes the OpenTracing TCK. The reason they use the mock > > tracer is to verify the CDI behavior only. > > > > It looks like Pavol has taken it over, he may be able to help guide it a > > bit better. However, unless we choose to support a specific OT impl, its > > not worth implementing (and I know how you generally feel about using > > outside libraries). > > > > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 3:28 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > I started to implement opentracing spec, it is not finished but overall it > > is progressing > > but I have a few issues with TCKs which assume we run with the MockTracer > > of opentracing instead of a real tracer. > > > > Should we run with the mock tracer or should we report it as a big deal? > > > > For now the implementation includes opentracing too so the switch is not a > > dependency but we can make it configurable if we want. > > > > Side note: as a workaround I added not hurting methods in the class (used > > by reflection by the tcks) and used CDI to @Alternative in src/test the > > beans which would have a bad impact on a prod impl (like the tracer storing > > all spans in mem :s). > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >
