opentelemetry-specificatio VS SLF4J

Sure, happy to provide more specifics!

Our main issue was the lack of a synchronous gauge. The officially supported asynchronous API of registering a callback function to report a gauge metric is very different from how we were doing things before, and would have required lots of refactoring of our code. Instead, we wrote a wrapper that exposes a synchronous-like API: https://gist.github.com/yolken-airplane/027867b753840f7d15d6....

It seems like this is a common feature request across many of the SDKs, and it's in the process of being fixed in some of them (https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specificatio...)? I'm not sure what the plans are for the golang SDK specifically.

Another, more minor issue, is the lack of support for "constant" attributes that are applied to all metrics. We use these to identify the app, among other use cases, so we added wrappers around the various "Add", "Record", "Observe", etc. calls that automatically add these. (It's totally possible that this is supported and I missed it, in which case please let me know!).

Overall, the SDK was generally well-written and well-documented, we just needed some extra work to make the interfaces more similar to the ones were were using before.

Two problems with OpenTelemetry:

1. It doesn't know what the hell it is. Is it a semantic standard? Is a protocol? It is a facade? What layer of abstraction does it provide? Answer: All of the above! All the things! All the layers!

2. No one from OpenTelemetry has actually tried instrumenting a library. And if they have, they haven't the first suggestion on how instrumenters should actually use metrics, traces, and logs. Do you write to all three? To one? I asked this question two years ago, not a single response. [1]

[1] https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specificatio...

That's why you have otel logging: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specificatio...

There are a large amount of subtle tradeoffs around the bucketing scheme (log, vs. log-linear, base) and memory layout (sparse, dense, chunked) the amount of configurability in the histogram space (circllhist, DDSketch, HDRHistogram, ...). A good overview is this discussion here:

https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specificatio...

As for the circllhist: There are no knobs to turn. It uses base 10 and two decimal digits of precision. In the last 8 years I have not seen a single use-case in the operational domain where this was not appropriate.

A good place to look at is the milestones on GitHub: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specificatio...

Logging is still experimental in the spec. Metrics API is feature freeze and the protocol is stable, so it's more on language SDKs to stabilize their implementations. This is a focus for several of them right now.

A few years ago, my team moved from Java to Go. Working on Go projects, we encountered a wide variety of logging frameworks with different APIs, configuration, and formatting. We soon found ourselves longing for a logging abstraction layer like Java’s slf4j, which had proven invaluable for use in reusable libraries or configuring and debugging production systems. So, not long after moving to Go, we began working toward replacing what we had lost in slf4j.

I'm not familiar with Serilog as I code mostly in Java, use slf4j (logs to stdout) and our apps send logs to Cloudwatch using the task definition's awslogs configuration. I prefer it this way because I can customize the log configurations in my task definitions. Also the default stream name has this format prefix-name/container-name/ecs-task-id so I can easily identify the logs of the task I want to look at. I haven't experienced any downsides with this approach and our apps publish a shit ton of logs. Cloudwatch approach looks like you can customize the stream name?

slf4j is open source. You can look at the code.

Java -> Logback, Log4j2, JDK (Java Util Logging), Slf4j, e.t.c.

slf4j para padronização dos logs;

SLF4J

> My God. Logging in protobuf?

Yes, or any other data format and/or transport protocol.

I'm surprised this is up for debate.

> Logging is the lowest of all debugging utilities - its the first thing you ever do writing software - “hello world”. And, while I admire structural logging, the truth is printing strings remains (truly) the lowest common denominator across software developers.

This sort of comment is terribly miopic. You can have a logging API, and then configure your logging to transport the events anywhere, any way. This is a terribly basic feature and requirement, and one that comes out of the box with some systems. Check how SLF4J[1] is pervasive in Java, and how any SLF4J implementation offers logging to stdout or a local file as a very specific and basic usecase.

It turns out that nowadays most developers write software that runs on many computers that aren't stashed over or under their desks, and thus they need efficient and convenient ways to check what's happening either in a node or in all deployments.

[1] https://www.slf4j.org/