-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
ref: Amend transaction and spans RFC 118 #125
Conversation
Amend decision of RFC 118 to use single span ingestion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, just small wording suggestions
@@ -65,3 +75,18 @@ Have one transaction per screen. This automatic transaction can be fully managed | |||
### 3. Leave it as-is | |||
|
|||
Whilst being the least effort, this option doesn't add any value and we remain with all the drawbacks as outlined in the [background section](#background). | |||
|
|||
### 4. Single Span Ingestion <a name="option-4"></a> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sidenote/question: why is it "single" span ingestion? I know we didn't invent this here, maybe you have a source
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's just the wording people always brought up. I don't have any source.
Co-authored-by: Karl Heinz Struggl <[email protected]>
Tagging @AbhiPrasad here, as there were similar plans for browser JS. |
I already mentioned in the TSC that we plan to use span ingestion for mobile starfish. I guess @AbhiPrasad should be aware, but thanks for tagging him here. |
Amend the decision of RFC 118 to use single-span ingestion.
Rendered RFC