OSDir


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: opentracing update


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 BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le dim. 20 mai 2018 à 10:02, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <johndament@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 <rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx> 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 BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book