Replies: 1 comment
-
|
My 2 cents:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
We’re currently relying on Traceloop’s zero-code (auto) instrumentation, but this approach is starting to show cracks—especially when you look at it from a production readiness perspective.
There are a few concrete problems:
Inconsistent framework support
Traceloop claims broad framework coverage, but in practice the support is uneven. Some integrations work fine, others are partial or silently fail, which makes trace data unreliable. That’s a serious issue when observability is supposed to be a core feature.
Dependency compatibility issues
Even for the frameworks that are supported, instrumentation is tightly coupled to specific dependency versions. If your stack deviates even slightly, traces break or behave unpredictably. This introduces hidden fragility and makes upgrades painful.
Unnecessary dependency bloat
Auto-instrumentation pulls in a large number of dependencies, many of which are not directly relevant to the application. This goes against typical production best practices (minimal footprint, controlled dependencies) and increases the risk surface.
Right now, this setup feels convenient for demos, but brittle for real-world usage. If we don’t address this properly, observability becoming unreliable—which defeats its purpose.
Would be good to hear thoughts on how we should approach this going forward.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions