gistfile1.txt

Unknown 0:00
leads to open tracing spec for micro profile.

Unknown 0:05
He said that by the end of March. So in the next week or two. Open telemetry will have its first beta release.

Unknown 0:14
And they're still on track to have what they call a production grade release in the second half of 2020.

Unknown 0:23
And he felt that we could very quickly create a very basic open telemetry specification that basically covered what open tracing does today but with open telemetry behind it. In a very short space of time.

Unknown 0:39
And he felt that that was achievable to do for October's platform release. So, it comes down to whether we're better off pulling open tracing from the platform for four zero to allow that to be added or whether we have to wait until June.

Unknown 1:03
The following June. Right.

Unknown 1:07
Yeah.

Unknown 1:09
I kind of think, like, wait, once it's open telemetry This is back already so we follow the kind of what we have said, in practice, like context propagation, on, on etc. On, do we want to get have some grace period with falls on some feedback kind of cetera I think with that, I would think I would like him to keep that open tracing in, like, and then give like a few, few months, overlap him period and then like directly replace.

Unknown 1:51
Oh, we could do a another vote.

Unknown 1:55
So to see what other people think is Heiko a bit varied with the open telemetry that it's if it's a spec that we just write down in two or three months, that it may be something that we need to revise a lot. Afterwards, so it's.

Unknown 2:15
It should be probably at an incubation stage or something but not as a full replacement.

Unknown 2:24
Yeah, I agree is no point of rush.

Unknown 2:28
Oh by the way this is Emily, sorry I forgot to mention my name.

Unknown 2:32
I'm not a fan of the name roll, but john here. Open telemetry. What's it mean to have open telemetry and open tracing in the spec at the same time.

Unknown 2:43
Right. That means, folks have to implement it, both in implementation, as they're both in the same platform. Implementations would need to be modified in such a way that only one was present within a given application, the tubing present in the same would result in traces being recorded twice.

Unknown 3:08
Okay. Where would you put that that requirement, you'll Shannon. By the way,

Unknown 3:17
which requirement that there must be only one in any given implementation.

Unknown 3:27
So well it would be right to have by virtue of what specs we have in the platform as to how many would be there.

Unknown 3:33
I think john was asking from a perspective of could we have both in the platform. At the same time, I think it's both but in any application SF only one. I think it's, it has to be active, only one, you can have both but with config flag switch between them. I think that would be a lot.

Unknown 3:55
Right. Where is that requirement that only one can be active in an application.

Unknown 4:02
Well it's from discussions with pebble that the two implementations are present, without conflict, if I'm if I'm building an app where do I read this requirement was not defined anywhere yet because we're figuring out whether we have one or both at the same time, this is where to discussing.

Unknown 4:21
If you were to decide to do this, where would you write down the requirement that there would only be one. There must only be one would be in the specs of open tracing and open telemetry. So each one of them says if you use me you use, you cannot use the other, more than likely Yes.

Unknown 4:42
Okay.

Unknown 4:46
There's no interest in having an actual platform spec.

Unknown 4:52
So that's been discussed in the past, and we've built up. I think a lot of incremental reasons to actually create a platform level spec, we've never actually executed on it, as of yet spec don't we, I mean when we do, let me rephrase that. Let me rephrase that. Right. You know the platform level spec says, here's the following specifications, right, that are included and that's really all all it is today.

Unknown 5:24
But there's nothing in the platform spec. That, for example defines how specs have to interoperate at the platform level right and it's a spec level they do.

Unknown 5:37
And this is an example, and there were some other reasons that we talked about having a platform level spec.

Unknown 5:45
But, this gets into the larger. Growing Pains discussion and Bill, that's a discussion that's kind of been a year. Plus, in the making. It's basically says okay we've got, you know, 12, pretty soon 13 specs.

Unknown 6:02
You know, do we need to think about organizing the specs in some different way. Do we need to have a platform spec or not. Right. It's an open ended conversation that whole conversation about platform specs and how to deal with number of specs we had was put on kind of a pause when we decided that we decided but but when Jakarta II kind of hit the heavy lifting portion where we had to work a lot on the JV specs and people didn't have time to do both. But it's also kind of put on pause a little bit right now I think because of the working group discussion.

Unknown 6:41
So at some point we do want to discuss whether or not to have a platform spec. Now hopefully I hope I did that conversation justice there. Yep.

Unknown 6:52
Yep.

This transcript was generated by https://otter.ai