Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Modifying resources specification to describe capabilities #196

Merged

Conversation

toumorokoshi
Copy link
Member

@toumorokoshi toumorokoshi commented Jul 27, 2019

A focus of the specification on the capabilities that should be
afforded rather than strict requirements around implementation
enable better flexibility to ensure libraries are compatible with
the idioms of their corresponding languages.

This incorporates feedback discussed in #191.

Updates #165.

A focus of the specification on the capabilities that should be
afforded rather than strict requirements around implementation
enable better flexibility to ensure libraries are compatible with
the idioms of their corresponding languages.

This commit incorporates feedback discussed in open-telemetry#191.
Creates a new `Resource` that is a combination of labels of two `Resource`s. For
example, from two `Resource`s - one representing the host and one representing a
container, resulting `Resource` will describe both.
Label key namespacing SHOULD be used to prevent collisions across different
Copy link
Member Author

@toumorokoshi toumorokoshi Jul 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wasn't clear on what this line was trying to say. Is this recommending that the labels themselves should be namespaced?

That feels like a recommendation that belongs in a section that describes a Resource object.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think Merge API should describe the behavior when collision happened.
Resource concept could describe what's the recommended way of using namespaces, and provide a link to the "predefined schema".

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks! do you have an example or a link of what a predefined schema is? I'm having trouble finding that in the specification.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Currently there is no central place, and everything was taken from existing OpenCensus.
https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/master/work_in_progress/opencensus/StandardResources.md

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

got it, thanks! As that gets merged up I'm happy to send a pr if I send see it addressed in a separate one.

Copy link
Member

@reyang reyang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@songy23 songy23 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@c24t c24t left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@carlosalberto carlosalberto merged commit 24b4205 into open-telemetry:master Jul 31, 2019
SergeyKanzhelev pushed a commit to SergeyKanzhelev/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this pull request Feb 18, 2020
…metry#196)

A focus of the specification on the capabilities that should be
afforded rather than strict requirements around implementation
enable better flexibility to ensure libraries are compatible with
the idioms of their corresponding languages.

This commit incorporates feedback discussed in open-telemetry#191.
carlosalberto pushed a commit to carlosalberto/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this pull request Oct 31, 2024
…metry#196)

A focus of the specification on the capabilities that should be
afforded rather than strict requirements around implementation
enable better flexibility to ensure libraries are compatible with
the idioms of their corresponding languages.

This commit incorporates feedback discussed in open-telemetry#191.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants