David Elner

I think this is an artifact of package design right now. In theory you include `datadog/tracing` and it loads `datadog/core`, which has this configuration & environment logger. Problem is the...

@rahul342 0.x is in maintenance mode, and we only provide it backports for critical security issues. However, in this instance, we can provide a "pre-release" gem (a specially versioned gem)...

**Before I address the behavior in this integration, first a little background on `service_name` changes in 1.0...** With the upgrade from 0.x --> 1.0, we've changed the behavior of `service`...

If I understand it correctly, with ActiveJob, all the spans occur within the Rails process that enqueues the jobs. However, `active_job` itself neither connects to the datastore, nor does it...

> I think a little problem right now is that the UI doesn't expose the "component" bit. Then this is something we should fix on our end. I'm currently advocating...

> I suspect the solution here will be for individual tracing components to stop requiring `datadog/core` I think this might be the opposite. Tracing should reference `datadog/core`, but nothing in...

Gotcha, this is a good consideration to expand support for Sinatra. Looking forward to seeing more from this!

Is there any way to push the `Datadog` middleware to the top of the stack? Or does `BodyProxy` truly have to run first/last? (Before/after `ddtrace` middleware?) If there's a way...

> so technically datadog "rack" instrumentation is not complete without handling that CommonLogger properly. @skcc321 Right, so why couldn't we push the `datadog` middleware to the the last middleware?

Thus far I have the core & its test suite updated. Tests for each integration still have to be updated, which is WIP.