Let me find some clarification on what/how might be exposed.

On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 3:34 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What does ‘expose’ actually mean here?
>
> I think a typical usage is that, users create a span and a scope, and in
> the scope they call our client API, and our client API will make use of the
> Span in the current scope?
>
> So at least we need to let users know they have to use otel if they want to
> trace HBase calls. But do we really need to expose other things?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org>于2021年11月10日 周三05:40写道:
>
> > If it was akin to slf4j, that integration has been relatively smooth
> > for downstream.
> >
> > log4j effectively being in our public api through configuration
> > formats has been a maintenance nightmare.
> >
> > These would effectively be in our java binary API though, right? Would
> > we gain any meaningful isolation from trouble later on if we had
> > wrapper objects around the otel stuff?
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 2:29 PM Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Heya,
> > >
> > > I've been kicking the tires on the OpenTelemetry tracing work and I
> have
> > an
> > > ugly question to present. One of the things suggested by the otel
> > community
> > > is that library implementers (like us, with hbase-client) expose the
> > > Span/Scope objects to callers so that they can add context
> annotations. I
> > > think this means adding API calls that return otel instances. From our
> > > previous experience exposing Guava objects in our API, this sounds no
> > good.
> > > On the other hand, log4j and SLF4j are effectively in our public API,
> and
> > > so maybe otel is of a similar breed.
> > >
> > > I have not yet attempted to implement exposure of their objects in our
> > > client API, so as of now, my position is that of speculation. I'll
> report
> > > back as I make progress in this direction. If anyone else has already
> > > traveled this road, please speak up and share your experiences.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Nick
> >
>

Reply via email to