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

Logging configuration #29

Closed
toddbaert opened this issue Apr 26, 2022 · 8 comments
Closed

Logging configuration #29

toddbaert opened this issue Apr 26, 2022 · 8 comments
Labels
architecture roadmap This initiative is on the project's roadmap specification

Comments

@toddbaert
Copy link
Member

toddbaert commented Apr 26, 2022

We may want to define a standard logging interface that could be supplied as an optional argument to the client creation function, which could wrap standard logging functionality of the implementation language (or whatever the Application Author wants to use).

@agentgonzo
Copy link
Member

It'll certainly be nicer than directly using its own logger, which just happens to be a different one from the logger that the caller is using.... which happens all the time 😆

@toddbaert
Copy link
Member Author

It'll certainly be nicer than directly using its own logger, which just happens to be a different one from the logger that the caller is using.... which happens all the time laughing

Yep, and it's always irritating 😡.

Using it's own logger, or just writing to console could always be a fallback to one being un-supplied.

@toddbaert
Copy link
Member Author

We should also give providers access to the logger somehow, I think. The can use it in provider logic, but also, pass it to whatever SDK they might be wrapping, if that's supported.

@moredip
Copy link
Member

moredip commented Apr 26, 2022

An intentionally provocative idea - what if we didn't specify any logging support at all, and relied on otel integration for this capability?

Or, less provocatively, could we implement logging entirely in userland via hooks?

@toddbaert
Copy link
Member Author

toddbaert commented Apr 26, 2022

An intentionally provocative idea - what if we didn't specify any logging support at all, and relied on otel integration for this capability?

Or, less provocatively, could we implement logging entirely in userland via hooks?

Point one is provocative indeed, not sure yet how I feel about that.

I'm interested in the second point as well, it might be enough, but does that get us all the logging we need? What if there's a desire to log something IN a provider, or in the basic flag evaluation life-cycle outside a hook?

@toddbaert
Copy link
Member Author

An OFEP for this would be good, eventually.

@beeme1mr
Copy link
Member

I'm going to move this to the research repo.

@beeme1mr beeme1mr transferred this issue from open-feature/spec Aug 11, 2022
@toddbaert
Copy link
Member Author

We've decided that logging is enough of an orthogonal concern that we will not outline it in the spec.

It will be up to SDKs to implement logging in a language-idiomatic way, keeping in mind the applicable design principles.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
architecture roadmap This initiative is on the project's roadmap specification
Projects
Status: Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants