On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 6:04 PM Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Original, i just want to implement tracing by interceptors. We don’t must > > to binding “tracing” and “interceptors” together. > > I thougt that to implement message tracing in pulsar, we should implement > > interceptors before. And interceptors might be useful in multiple > scenarios. > > Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Interceptors are a good feature to have > in general and tracing can be implemented on top of that. > I think we should probably separate the 2 aspects and have this proposal > just focus on interceptors. > I think the PIP was meant to focus on interceptors (and optionally a dump client tracing interceptor). We can have a separate PIP for "Integrating with OpenTracing" and another PIP for "Integrating with OpenCensus" in future. So we are able to reduce the scope and move PIP forward much faster. - Sijie > > One other thing to consider is that for tracing to be "meaningful" we would > also need to have support in broker side (and, as you mentioned, ideally in > bookkeeper as well). That means that either: > > * We provide "interceptors" hooks also for broker > * or we have some "fixed" tracing implementation that we support. > > In any case, my previous example was to show how, as a user, I'd like the > enabling tracing in Pulsar should be. Since tracing will be a very common > feature, we should aim to have a tight integration with few common tracing > providers, while leaving the freedom for user to integrate with custom > tracing systems. > > Matteo > > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:02 AM 李鹏辉 <codelipeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Original, i just want to implement tracing by interceptors. We don’t must > > to binding “tracing” and “interceptors” together. > > > > I thougt that to implement message tracing in pulsar, we should implement > > interceptors before. And interceptors might be useful in multiple > > scenarios. > > > -- > Matteo Merli > <mme...@apache.org> >
