Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add auto-configure support for logging-otlp #4879
Add auto-configure support for logging-otlp #4879
Changes from 1 commit
918faf7
601e82a
0fa4d94
0cd2f4f
8b5a2dc
318f2d6
8b3c3e6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
WDYT about providing a
ConfigurableLogRecordExporterProvider
and letting the autoconfigure discover the exporter automatically?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I could give a shot if it's desired. Initially I was just following the code pattern used for the "logging" exporter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've been thinking this may be a good idea to do for all the exporters from a separation of concerns perspective. If each exporter artifact contains a
Configurable{Signal}ExporterProvider
, then the code to interpretConfigProperties
becomes distributed into each artifacts, reducing the complexity of autoconfigure, especially around testing which has become cumbersome.What do you think @jkwatson?
BTW, for the purposes of this PR I do think we should continue the current pattern. If we agree on implementing providers, we can open a separate issue to track that work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this sounds great, and could help guide users into good practices when they are trying to extend autoconfigure with their own items (e.g. exporters)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍