Feedback requested on Services Metrics proposal

Rob Miller rmiller at
Fri Oct 14 12:46:35 PDT 2011

On 10/14/11 12:31 PM, Ben Bangert wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Rob Miller wrote:
>> Actually, what you've described is almost precisely what I intended with the current proposal.  What I call "metadata" is what you called "arbitrary key-value pairs".  The "message" part is the payload, and it can be a string, JSON, or anything that can be serialized and sent over the wire.
>> The only difference between what you described and what I've proposed, AFAICT, is that you pulled "type" and "labels" out into top level pieces of the envelope, while I imagined them as embedded within the arbitrary key-value pairs.
>> Maybe the issue here is just the naming.  For some reason everybody seems thrown off by "metadata" as the field name, thinking it means something other than it does.  Anyone have any better suggestions?
> In zilch and sentry, they're called "tags".

Yeah, that was my first thought, too, but "tags" makes me think of a set 
of string tokens, rather than key-value pairs, so I didn't use it.  Tags 
might be a less loaded term, though, so unless I hear any complaints 
about it or any better ideas, I'll switch to that.


More information about the Services-dev mailing list