p[trace|metric|log]otlp.Response and p[trace|metric|log]otlp.Request do not follow naming convention

[bogdandrutu]

Should they be named "Export[Logs|Metrics|Trace]ServiceRequest"?

/cc @dmitryax

[bogdandrutu]

Another option is to drop the prefix Export[], if we do that we should remove it from Export[Logs|Metrics|Traces]PartialSuccess

[dmitryax]

Export[Logs|Metrics|Trace]ServiceRequest maybe seemed like unnecessary long, so we potentially can add it to the exception list, but I think Export part is important enough to keep.

Given that these structs are used pretty rarely, I'd rather follow the guidelines here and apply the full name. WDYT?

[dmitryax]

or maybe p[trace|metric|log]otlp.Export[Request|Response] and p[trace|metric|log]otlp.ExportPartialSuccess?

[bogdandrutu]

I like the idea of dropping the data type from the name, since it is in the package name anyway. So I think we can add that as a guidance that, when the data type is in the name and does not provide value (like ResourceLogs) we should drop it.

So, we will have:

p[trace|metric|log]otlp.ExportService[Request|Response]
p[trace|metric|log]otlp.ExportPartialSuccess

[dmitryax]

Makes sense, but I'm a bit unsure about ExportService[Request|Response] . It sounds a bit confusing comparing to Export[Request|Response]. Not sure why ExportMetricsServiceRequest message was introduced in proto, I believe it should be ExportRequest based on examples from https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3#services

[bogdandrutu]

You should also post this on the proto repo. I think you are right.