Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Update Kafka messaging example #1799

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
+2 −2
Closed

Update Kafka messaging example #1799

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions specification/trace/semantic_conventions/messaging.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -258,8 +258,8 @@ Process CB: | Span Rcv2 |
| Field or Attribute | Span Prod1 | Span Rcv1 | Span Proc1 | Span Prod2 | Span Rcv2
|-|-|-|-|-|-|
| Span name | `"T1 send"` | `"T1 receive"` | `"T1 process"` | `"T2 send"` | `"T2 receive`" |
| Parent | | Span Prod1 | Span Rcv1 | | Span Prod2 |
| Links | | | | Span Prod1 | |
| Parent | | Span Prod1 | Span Rcv1 | Span Proc1 | Span Prod2 |
| Links | | | | | |
Comment on lines -261 to +262
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I already made a comment about this in the original PR at #1027 (comment) where @kenfinnigan then explained why a parent/child relationship might not always be possible or applicable.
Maybe we understand this problem better now that the first Kafka instrumentations based on these semantic conventions were already developed.
CC @anuraaga who might have an opinion here.

Copy link
Member

@kenfinnigan kenfinnigan Jul 7, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My views have evolved somewhat, but I think it's also colored by #65 not being resolved, and how the spans look when visualized.

While I still think it makes sense for producing a new message to have no parent on the "process" of the existing one, it really messes with the visualization aspect as it gives the impression, as I mentioned in #1085 (comment), that the production of a new message is a child of the incoming span.

I'm ok with adjusting things as it makes the visualization clearer. Maybe it is revisited when there is a concept of "follows from".

| SpanKind | `PRODUCER` | `CONSUMER` | `CONSUMER` | `PRODUCER` | `CONSUMER` |
| Status | `Ok` | `Ok` | `Ok` | `Ok` | `Ok` |
| `peer.service` | `"myKafka"` | | | `"myKafka"` | |
Expand Down