> 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. 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>
