Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [microprofile-wg] What about JVM Metrics in Semantic Conventions (was: Re: [BALLOT] [MicroProfile Metrics 5.1] - Release Review - VOTE by 6th Oct - (2 weeks))

Hi Ed,
Please see the plan review for MicroProfile Telemetry 1.1 here. Since OpenTelemetry Metrics APIs and Metrics names are not stable as yet, MicroProfile Telemetry 1.1 did not pull in any OpenTelemetry metrics. In the meanwhile, MicroProfile Telemetry team has been working with OpenTelemetry community to speed the process of stablising the core Metrics parts. We plan to adopt OpenTelemetry Metrics and/or Logging in the next release of MicroProfile Telemetry.


On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 6:50 PM Edward Burns via microprofile-wg <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Copying my request for clarification from the MP Telemetry 1.1 to here also.


Ed wrote:


Subject: What about JVM Metrics in Semantic Conventions (was: Re: [microprofile-wg] [BALLOT] [MicroProfile Telemetry 1.1] - Release Review - VOTE by 6th Oct - (2 weeks))

I would like to vote plus one on this, but I need to understand how the Experimental JVM Metrics of the open-telemetry specification relate to MP Telemetry 1.1. See docs/jvm/


I looked at the Spec HTML. It includes this statement:


Vendors are encouraged to use metric names consistent with the Open Telemetry Metrics Semantic Conventions where applicable.




  1. The link. It appears the Open Telemetry has moved the page to open-telemetry/semantic-conventions: Defines standards for generating consistent, accessible telemetry across a variety of domains (
    That’s not a very helpful link. Perhaps the link should be to docs/jvm/
  2. The text. If we change the link to point directly to docs/jvm/, can we say something more forceful than “Vendors are encouraged”?







| edburns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | office: +1 954 727 1095

| Calendar Booking:


| Please don't feel obliged to read or reply to this e-mail outside

| of your normal working hours.


| Reply anonymously to this email:


From: microprofile-wg <microprofile-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Takahiro Nagao (Fujitsu) via microprofile-wg <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, September 29, 2023 at 02:38
To: 'Microprofile WG discussions' <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Takahiro Nagao (Fujitsu) <nagao.takahiro@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [microprofile-wg] [BALLOT] [MicroProfile Metrics 5.1] - Release Review - VOTE by 6th Oct - (2 weeks)

+1 (Fujitsu)


-- Takahiro Nagao


From: microprofile-wg <microprofile-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Emily Jiang via microprofile-wg
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2023 3:03 AM
To: Microprofile WG discussions <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [microprofile-wg] [BALLOT] [MicroProfile Metrics 5.1] - Release Review - VOTE by 6th Oct - (2 weeks)


To approve and ratify the Release Review of MicroProfile Metrics 5.1 Specification, the Steering Committee Representatives' vote is requested. Please respond with +1 (positive), 0 (abstain), or -1 (reject). Any feedback that you can provide to support your vote will be appreciated.


The MicroProfile Specification Process requires the Specification Committee and the Community to provide feedback during the approval process using the relevant documents:



This ballot will be 14 days, ending on 6th October 2023.  The ballot requires a Super-majority positive vote of the Steering Committee members. There is no veto. Community input and Community votes are welcomed. However, only the votes delivered by Steering Committee Representatives will be counted.



Thank you

Emily on behalf of the MicroProfile Steering Committee


microprofile-wg mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit


Back to the top