Christian Neumüller
Christian Neumüller
Have you thought about how this would be represented in the protocol? Would you then send a list of links along with the list of spans? The links could also...
So you need attributes? Then it's not a pure "context".
One idea that I wanted to bring up is to use zero-duration-spans after all and use a special span kind like "DOWNLINK". That way you could hide them / collapse...
I thought attributes were actually needed on these?
> Still, such a span should have 0-duration, no status, no attributes, no links or events > Attributes should be on links to message context, not on spans. I don't...
> You can only create message span on the service A, but where would you put message-specific attributes on service B? They have changed - it's a new topic and...
> Moreover, assuming ServiceB is a broker, its telemetry could belong to the cloud provider it's managed by. Creating such spans would break causality. This multi-tenant/multi-vendor problem can & should...
> message processing represent application logic, while sending this messages through multiple hops is mostly irrelevant The same could be said about HTTP: The ultimate handler of the HTTP request...
OK, so you are saying, in your first scenario, B not only does not modify the context, it also does not emit any telemetry items at all? If that's the...
Since you complain about span name, I think it currently has an unclear purpose, see related issue #557.