Update semantic convention requirements #165
Conversation
pdudits
requested review from
Azquelt,
brunobat,
yasmin-aumeeruddy and
JanWesterkamp-iJUG
pom.xml
Outdated
| @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ | |||
| <properties> | |||
| <inceptionYear>2022</inceptionYear> | |||
| <opentelemetry.java.version>1.32.0</opentelemetry.java.version> | |||
| <opentelemetry.semconv.version>1.24.0</opentelemetry.semconv.version> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't we use the same version as used inside:
<groupId>io.opentelemetry.instrumentation</groupId>
<artifactId>opentelemetry-instrumentation-api-semconv</artifactId>
... they have 1.21.0-alpha in there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm unable to find reference to this artifact in spec or the current TCKs.
Tracing TCK depends on io.opentelemetry.semconv:opentelemetry-semconv:jar:1.23.1-alpha, which is the most recent version "official" semconv package from https://github.com/open-telemetry/semantic-conventions-java.
No instrumentation artifacts are referenced outside of io.opentelemetry.instrumentation:opentelemetry-instrumentation-annotations:jar:1.32.0, which only depends on opentelemetry-api.
My argument is that while these APIs can be useful for implementations, they are too fragile to bind them to a spec. It is ok to use them, but not to make it available to end users.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We cannot use io.opentelemetry.instrumentation:opentelemetry-instrumentation-annotations as an alternative to io.opentelemetry.semconv:opentelemetry-semconv
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@yasmin-aumeeruddy what will you suggest to update in @pdudits 's PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think io.opentelemetry.semconv:opentelemetry-semconv:jar:1.23.1-alpha would be the right articact to use
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From today's meeting, @pdudits will update the version to 1.25 and tck dependency to 1.25.0-alpha
Partially addresses #150.
The last one may be a bit surprising one, but due to following reasons: