More explanation for OTLP transport protocols #1790
Conversation
iNikem
force-pushed
the
exporter-transport
branch
from
0a844e8 to
f428e8c
Compare
| - `http/protobuf` for protobuf-encoded data over HTTP connection | ||
| - `http/json` for JSON-encoded data over HTTP connection | ||
|
|
||
| SDKs MUST support either `grpc` or `http/protobuf` and SHOULD support both. They also MAY support `http/json`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I haven't seen a definitive analysis in the ticket of why one of protobuf-based protocols is a MUST, can you elaborate?
Specifically, in the past we've always had issues with supporting Thrift in the browser - I don't know the current state of protobuf for browser, but according to #1764 (comment) it's a similar story, JSON is preferred.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
#1764 (comment) and #1764 (comment)
It was also discussed during the last maintainers meeting (https://youtu.be/ZqQ4sbOsvLs?t=887) and this decision was made there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps instead of SDKs, Languages is more obvious? I suppose the intent is that JS supports at least protobuf for node users, and if protobuf is prohibitive in a browser it can also support JSON for that specific use case.
|
I think we are ready to go. @iNikem would you mind adding a Changelog entry? Thanks! |
@carlosalberto done. |
Fixes #1764
Changes
More explanation for OTLP transport protocols. Also clearly state that the support for one of the
grpcorhttp/protobufis required andhttp/jsonis not enough.