Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Package and directory structure #4

Closed
c24t opened this issue May 29, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

Package and directory structure #4

c24t opened this issue May 29, 2019 · 2 comments
Labels
discussion Issue or PR that needs/is extended discussion.

Comments

@c24t
Copy link
Member

c24t commented May 29, 2019

Decide on the directory structure and packages for the new repo. Borrowing from OpenCensus, this might look like:

context/
contrib/
opentelemetry/
  api/
    logs/
    metrics/
    tags/
    trace/
  sdk/
    common/
    logs/
    metrics/
    tags/
    trace/

Changes as compared to OC:

  • api and sdk are separate packages
  • stats has been merged into metrics

Open questions:

  • What do we want to name the new packages: opentelemetry-api and opentelemetry-sdk, or just opentelemetry for the implementation package?
  • Should we continue to package context separately?
  • Should we distinguish between exporters and integrations (or "adapters") in contrib?

This assumes that we're still using namespace packages to create multiple distributions from the same codebase.

@c24t c24t added the discussion Issue or PR that needs/is extended discussion. label May 29, 2019
@c24t
Copy link
Member Author

c24t commented May 29, 2019

See also @mayurkale22's proposal for opentelemetry-node.

@carlosalberto
Copy link
Contributor

Hey hey,

What do we want to name the new packages: opentelemetry-api and opentelemetry-sdk, or just opentelemetry for the implementation package?

As some vendors may need to only consume (implement) the API, I'd personally stick to opentelemetry-sdk for the SDK, to avoid confusion. For the API, either opentelemetry-api or opentelemetry would be fine.

The rest look fine to me (although I'm still getting familiar with the existing codebase ;) )

@c24t c24t closed this as completed Jul 3, 2019
codeboten pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 21, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discussion Issue or PR that needs/is extended discussion.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants