Add OTLP stdout exporter

[zeitlinger]

Towards #3817

Changes

Add OTLP Stdout exporter.

For non-trivial changes, follow the change proposal process.

• Related issues Is OTLP file exporter required for SDKs? #3817
  * [ ] Related OTEP(s) #
• Links to the prototypes: OTLP Stdout exporter opentelemetry-java#6632
• CHANGELOG.md file updated for non-trivial changes
  * [ ] spec-compliance-matrix.md updated if necessary
• reference implementation OTLP Stdout exporter opentelemetry-java#6632

[MrAlias]

How does this relate to the existing console/stdout¹ and file exporters? This seems at best overlapping, but at worst duplicative of already specified exporters.

Footnotes

1. https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/specification/metrics/sdk_exporters/stdout.md ↩

[pellared]

What about standard error and and file as output destinations?

[zeitlinger]

How does this relate to the existing console/stdout and file exporters? This seems at best overlapping, but at worst duplicative of already specified exporters.

• console/stdout: is for debugging purposes - it doesn't have a specified format, which you need for https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib/tree/main/connector/otlpjsonconnector
• file: it is exactly the stdout part of that, I failed to link that. in the spec meeting, we discussed that it would be easier to start with stdout as a subset to keep it simple

[zeitlinger]

@pellared @MrAlias can you check again?

[cijothomas]

Fixes #3817

The linked issue is about OTLP File exporter, but this seems to talking about stdout exporter... Did I misread this?

[zeitlinger]

Fixes #3817

The linked issue is about OTLP File exporter, but this seems to talking about stdout exporter... Did I misread this?

otlp-stdout is part of the file exporter

[github-actions]

This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days.

[zeitlinger]

@pellared @MrAlias can you check again?

[zeitlinger]

@cijothomas can you check again?

[github-actions]

This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days.

[zeitlinger]

still working on the pr

[cyrille-leclerc]

As discussed with @zeitlinger, this capability to export standardized OTel logs in files that can be seamlessly ingested by the OTel Collector is a major improvement for OTel logs.

That being said, I would be interested in understanding better the developer experience, how this OTEL_LOGS_EXPORTER=otlp/stdout config option will co-exist with the config of logging framework like Logback in Java?

Taking the example of a Java Spring Boot developer, I'll typically use the default logs configuration that emits unstructured logs in stdout (example below) and, if I want to modify this, I'll modify this config through Spring's application.properties and logback-spring.xml files (see reference docs here).

If I want to modify the stdout output of my Spring Boot application to adopt OTel JSON logging to replace the unstructured logs,

1. I'll expect to have to modify these Spring Boot config files for logging: application.properties and logback-spring.xml
2. I'll have to modify these Spring Boot config files to disable the unstructured log messages that are outputted in stdout.

I think that Elastic has done this very well with the Elastic ECS Logging framework. In addition to a manual config, Elastic has an experimental config flag log_ecs_reformatting do seamlessly change the logger config and disable the pre-existing config in favor of the ECS/JSON one. Maybe @AlexanderWert could share some lessons learned.

I'm wondering if we could start with implementing a few extensions of popular logging frameworks (LogBack, Log4j, Pino...) that developers would manually use in their logs config.This could be a natural extension of the OTLP gRPC and HTTP appenders we have implemented so far (eg [here](Appender Instrumentation for Logback version 1.0 and higher
))

I would imagine to the following developer experience for Spring Boot app:

• export OTEL_LOGS_EXPORTER=none to disable the otlp http output
• Edit logback-spring.xml to:

<configuration>
  <appender name="console" class="ch.qos.logback.core.ConsoleAppender">
     <!-- below is just an idea, don't copy paste this fragment -->
     <encoder class="io.opentelemetry.....OtlpJsonEncoder">
  </appender>
  ...
  <root level="INFO">
    <appender-ref ref="console"/>
  </root>

</configuration>

Example Spring Boot console logs (Spring docs here):

2024-08-22T16:59:59.387Z  INFO 109360 --- [myapp] [           main] o.s.b.d.f.logexample.MyApplication       : Starting MyApplication using Java 17.0.12 with PID 109360 (/opt/apps/myapp.jar started by myuser in /opt/apps/)
2024-08-22T16:59:59.410Z  INFO 109360 --- [myapp] [           main] o.s.b.d.f.logexample.MyApplication       : No active profile set, falling back to 1 default profile: "default"
2024-08-22T17:00:02.105Z  INFO 109360 --- [myapp] [           main] o.s.b.w.embedded.tomcat.TomcatWebServer  : Tomcat initialized with port 8080 (http)
2024-08-22T17:00:02.133Z  INFO 109360 --- [myapp] [           main] o.apache.catalina.core.StandardService   : Starting service [Tomcat]
2024-08-22T17:00:02.133Z  INFO 109360 --- [myapp] [           main] o.apache.catalina.core.StandardEngine    : Starting Servlet engine: [Apache Tomcat/10.1.28]
2024-08-22T17:00:02.296Z  INFO 109360 --- [myapp] [           main] o.a.c.c.C.[Tomcat].[localhost].[/]       : Initializing Spring embedded WebApplicationContext
2024-08-22T17:00:02.301Z  INFO 109360 --- [myapp] [           main] w.s.c.ServletWebServerApplicationContext : Root WebApplicationContext: initialization completed in 2647 ms
2024-08-22T17:00:03.219Z  INFO 109360 --- [myapp] [           main] o.s.b.w.embedded.tomcat.TomcatWebServer  : Tomcat started on port 8080 (http) with context path '/'
2024-08-22T17:00:03.250Z  INFO 109360 --- [myapp] [           main] o.s.b.d.f.logexample.MyApplication       : Started MyApplication in 5.793 seconds (process running for 7.164)

[martinjt]

I feel this is a bad direction for OpenTelemetry in general.

stdout for debugging is a valid usecase, but we should strongly encourage people to use OTLP and push the data to an endpoint (ideally a collector). We should not be promoting push data to the console/stdout and using another tool to pull that data and ingest it. I understand that K8s has done it this way in the past, and that 12 factor apps popularised this approach, but now we have a standardised protocol and we don't need that now.

From inefficiencies in some languages, to issues with polling for that data, it's just not something that we should push for when we have a lot of alternatives like OTLP and collector, that are part of the OpenTelemetry project.

All the requests I've seen from this in the .NET world have been from people not wanting to move from other technologies like fluent etc. and not that it's a better way to work.

I can understand a desire to have a console logging output that formats the log line with the template to produce the human readable string, but not one who's purpose is to provide a format for other tools to use. This will fragment the ecosystem further than it already is.

Right now, we have a path that we push people down. Use the OTLP exporter to push data to an endpoint that accepts OTLP. If we push down this route as a production usecase, that will become diluted with vendors saying "use our agent and configure OpenTelemetry to push to stdout", and still claim that they support OpenTelemetry. Especially if this is then supported for Metrics and Traces too. That will actively harm OpenTelemetry as a project, when we're trying make the developer experience better.

[zeitlinger]

please keep it open

[zeitlinger]

@zeitlinger It'd be great to capture some of the "why" comments from this PR into https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/specification/protocol/file-exporter.md#opentelemetry-protocol-file-exporter itself for an easy reference in future, "why we need a spec for non OTLP exporter".

@cijothomas done

[jsuereth]

I think this is a good step forward for users, but I also have concerns around efficiency and scalability of serialized JSON to file. I think we CAN do much better, but let's not block progress for perfection.