microsoft / microsoft/FeatureManagement-Dotnet
Compatibility/overlap with the OpenFeature Spec/SDK
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- C#
- Stars
- 1.2k
- Forks
- 129
- Avg merge
- 1d 1h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 5
Description
While checking something completely unrelated today, I stumbled upon this:
Similar to OpenTelemetry, this appears to be a SPEC + SDK standardization effort around the concept of feature flags/toggles. I noticed it already has a .NET implementation as well:
However, its interface is not very "idiomatic" to modern .NET patterns. For instance, it doesn't seem to have native integration with the hosting model and Dependency Injection, while this library here has those.
Looking at the list of known providers for OpenFeature, it doesn't list Microsoft's FeatureManagement there:
Does Microsoft intend to support this spec in a way similar to how it does for OpenTelemetry today? Are there any talks around unifying this FeatureManagement project around the concepts exposed by OpenFeature, perhaps even making it the oficial SDK, or at least the hosting model compatible SDK (like OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting)?
We had some plans to leverage FeatureManagement for our own currently custom feature flags system, but now I'd also want to be able to leverage this standardized OpenFeature SDK as it will be easier to support things such as OpenTelemetry integration in the future if the SDK is standardized.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by comparing the OpenFeature specification and .NET SDK with FeatureManagement’s hosting-model and dependency-injection integration, using the linked OpenFeature and NuGet resources. Clarify whether the requested outcome is compatibility, a provider, or unification with the official SDK; done would require a documented maintainer decision and defined integration scope.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- csharp
- Domain
- backend
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100