-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 834
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
Delete jaeger exporters #6119
Merged
jack-berg
merged 2 commits into
open-telemetry:main
from
jack-berg:delete-jaeger-exporter
Jan 12, 2024
Merged
Delete jaeger exporters #6119
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
23 changes: 0 additions & 23 deletions
23
exporters/jaeger-proto/src/main/proto/jaeger/api_v2/collector.proto
This file was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
89 changes: 0 additions & 89 deletions
89
exporters/jaeger-proto/src/main/proto/jaeger/api_v2/model.proto
This file was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
58 changes: 0 additions & 58 deletions
58
exporters/jaeger-proto/src/main/proto/jaeger/api_v2/time.proto
This file was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
how bad would it be to copy those internal classes into the jaeger exporter module and make one more jaeger exporter release, so that this wouldn't become a blocker for users to update to the latest SDK version?
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.
Its quite a lot. The entire
:exporters:common
module is internal, andopentelemetry-exporter-jaeger
relies heavily on it perform marshaling, grpc export (including all the okhttp sender stuff), tls stuff.opentelemetry-exporter-jaeger-thrift
only relies on 1 or 2 classes, butopentelemetry-exporter-jaeger-thrift
is barely used so we wouldn't gain much if we only ported internal classes for it.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.
would shading them in help the calculus? just worried about @jkwatson getting stuck on old SDK
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 would be open to that.. We would have to shade in
opentelemetry-exporter-otlp-common
andopentelemetry-exporter-sender-okhttp
.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.
As much as I would appreciate it, I don't think my (possibly singular) use-case should add extra work like this. If I'm not the only one who needs to keep using the old jaeger exporters, then it might be worth it. Only do the extra work if you think others will benefit as well.
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'm thinking that we should probably shade based on the intent(?) of https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/specification/upgrading.md, e.g.
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 doesn't apply to java. Since we always provide default noop implementations with any API addition, you should always be able to upgrade to a later API version than the SDK version. So users that are forced to stay in a lower version of the API shouldn't have a problem using instrumentation that uses a later version. There may be a degraded experience as portions of the API may have noop implementations despite an SDK being installed.
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 took a look at what it would take to shade the internal dependencies, and it turns its not simple. Problems include:
:exporters:common
, and relies on the internalGrpcSender
/GrpcSenderProvider
SPI.GrpcSender
sender implementations should be included. Probably just:exporters:sender:okhttp
, since including both would force users to resolve which to use using system properties. But excluding:exporters:ssender:grpc-managed-channel
would break support for that.META-INF/servies/*
stuff to point to the relocated classes.:exporters:common
includes internal references from:api:all
(io.opentelemetry.api.internal.ConfigUtil
) and:sdk:common
(io.opentelemetry.sdk.internal.ThrottlingLogger
). These are tricky because we end up needing two copies on the classpath: one non-shaded version of:sdk:common
to resolve the things likeResource
andInstrumentationScopeInfo
inJaegerGrpcSpanExporter#export(SpanData)
, and another shaded version of:sdk:common
just so the shaded:exporters:common
classes can reference internal classes without risk of breaking with api changes.Its the type of messiness that will take a fair amount of time to figure out, and I'm not interested in doing it without a strong reason. The way I see it, we're allowed to stop publishing artifacts and still be compliant with semconv. We've included entries in the bom which we've stopped publishing as a convenience, but TBH, those artifacts may have dependencies on internal classes as well and end up stop working. While it made us feel better, its probably not right to include old artifact references in the BOM, especially if those artifacts have any transitive dependencies on internal classes.
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.
👍