Opentelemetry-java: Suggest changing the SPI classes to be "*Factory" rather than "*Provider"

[jkwatson]

Having both a TraceProvider and a TracerProvider is very confusing. And, the documentation on TraceProvider actually is wrong and says that its name is TracerProvider. To eliminate this confusion, I recommend changing our SPI "provider" classes to be renamed to TracerProviderFactory and MeterProviderFactory so there is no confusion in the naming.

[bogdandrutu]

For SPI it is very common to call these Providers, I do understand that this is confusing and I raised this issue when they decided in the specs to call the Tracer/Meter providers.

[jkwatson]

Just as a data point, the auto-instrumentation project currently uses the Factory naming pattern for exporter SPI. We should probably true-up between the two projects, since we're all on the same team. :)

[trask]

What about TracerProviderProvider? 😁

[carlosalberto]

IMHO it's not a big deal as TraceProvider lives in the spi sub-package, so you know what you are getting (although we should fix the inline docs). That being said, I'm not entirely opposed to rename these components to TraceProviderFactory/MeterProviderFactory ;)

[bogdandrutu]

We must get more "Java", what about TraceProviderFactoryBuilder? :)

[jkwatson]

*Impl

[bogdandrutu]

Jokes apart, I think using Factory for that may be good.

[jkwatson]

I'm guessing we should also change the CorrelationContextManagerProvider to be CorrelationContextManagerFactory as well?