Pros of OpenTracing Java

• Vendor-neutral API, allowing for greater flexibility in choosing tracing backends
• Extensive support for various frameworks and libraries
• More comprehensive context propagation across different execution models

Cons of OpenTracing Java

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Requires more manual instrumentation compared to Brave
• Less performant in high-throughput scenarios

Code Comparison

OpenTracing Java:

Tracer tracer = GlobalTracer.get();
Span span = tracer.buildSpan("operation").start();
try (Scope scope = tracer.activateSpan(span)) {
    // Your code here
} finally {
    span.finish();
}

Brave:

Span span = tracer.nextSpan().name("operation");
try (SpanInScope ws = tracer.withSpanInScope(span.start())) {
    // Your code here
} finally {
    span.finish();
}

Key Differences

• OpenTracing Java offers a more generic API, while Brave is more opinionated and Zipkin-centric
• Brave provides better out-of-the-box performance and easier integration with Spring Boot
• OpenTracing Java has a larger ecosystem of compatible tracers and integrations

Conclusion

Choose OpenTracing Java for vendor-neutral, flexible tracing across diverse environments. Opt for Brave if you prefer a simpler API, better performance, and tight integration with Zipkin and Spring ecosystems.

Pros of SkyWalking

• More comprehensive observability platform with APM, metrics, and logging
• Supports multiple languages and frameworks out-of-the-box
• Provides a built-in UI for visualization and analysis

Cons of SkyWalking

• Heavier and more complex to set up and maintain
• Higher resource consumption due to its full-featured nature
• Steeper learning curve for newcomers

Code Comparison

SkyWalking (Java agent configuration):

<agent.application_code>MyApp</agent.application_code>
<collector.backend_service>oap-server:11800</collector.backend_service>
<plugin.mongodb.trace_param>true</plugin.mongodb.trace_param>

Brave (Spring Boot configuration):

spring:
  zipkin:
    baseUrl: http://zipkin-server:9411/
  sleuth:
    sampler:
      probability: 1.0

Both projects aim to provide distributed tracing capabilities, but SkyWalking offers a more comprehensive observability solution with built-in visualization tools. Brave, being part of the Zipkin ecosystem, focuses primarily on tracing and integrates well with other Zipkin components. SkyWalking is better suited for large-scale, multi-language environments, while Brave is lighter and easier to integrate into Java applications, especially those already using Spring Boot.

Pros of Spring Cloud Sleuth

• Seamless integration with Spring Boot and Spring Cloud ecosystem
• Built-in support for various Spring-specific features and configurations
• Automatic instrumentation for common Spring components

Cons of Spring Cloud Sleuth

• More tightly coupled with Spring framework, potentially limiting flexibility
• May have a steeper learning curve for non-Spring developers
• Slightly heavier dependency footprint compared to Brave

Code Comparison

Spring Cloud Sleuth:

@Bean
public Sampler defaultSampler() {
    return Sampler.ALWAYS_SAMPLE;
}

Brave:

Tracing.newBuilder()
    .localServiceName("my-service")
    .spanReporter(spanReporter)
    .build();

Key Differences

• Brave is a more lightweight and framework-agnostic tracing library
• Spring Cloud Sleuth provides deeper integration with Spring ecosystem
• Brave offers more flexibility for custom implementations and non-Spring projects
• Spring Cloud Sleuth abstracts some complexity but may limit fine-grained control

Use Cases

• Choose Spring Cloud Sleuth for Spring-based applications with existing Spring Cloud components
• Opt for Brave in non-Spring projects or when requiring more customization and portability

Both libraries are actively maintained and provide robust distributed tracing capabilities. The choice between them often depends on the specific project requirements and existing technology stack.

Pros of Zipkin

• Full-featured distributed tracing system with a web UI for visualization
• Supports multiple storage backends (Cassandra, Elasticsearch, MySQL)
• Provides a complete ecosystem with various language libraries and integrations

Cons of Zipkin

• More complex setup and configuration compared to Brave
• Higher resource consumption due to its comprehensive feature set
• Steeper learning curve for newcomers to distributed tracing

Code Comparison

Zipkin (Java):

Span span = tracer.newTrace().name("encode").start();
try {
  doSomethingExpensive();
} finally {
  span.finish();
}

Brave (Java):

Span span = tracer.nextSpan().name("encode");
try (Tracer.SpanInScope ws = tracer.withSpanInScope(span.start())) {
  doSomethingExpensive();
} finally {
  span.finish();
}

Key Differences

• Brave is a tracer library, while Zipkin is a complete tracing system
• Brave can be used as a standalone library or integrated with Zipkin
• Zipkin offers more out-of-the-box features and visualizations
• Brave provides more flexibility for custom implementations and integrations

Both projects are part of the OpenZipkin organization and can be used together, with Brave serving as a tracer library that reports to a Zipkin server for a comprehensive tracing solution.