Rename http.server.active_requests to http.server.current_requests?

[trask]

It would be nice to have a consistent approach to naming for "current number of X" / "number of active X" metrics

I think "current" might work more broadly/consistently because e.g. "active connections" could sound like connections which are being actively used, as opposed to the number of current connections in a connection pool.

[trask]

Not many similar metrics, only found:

• process.runtime.jvm.classes.current_loaded

[trask]

Some options if we want to come up with a consistent rule:

• http.server.request.current / jvm.class.current
• http.server.request.active / jvm.class.active
  • I don't think .active works as broadly as .current
• http.server.request.count / jvm.class.count
  • PRO - this aligns with other UpDownCounters which are captured as .count
  • CON - http.server.request.count sounds a bit like a (monotonic) counter

EDITED 10/28 to reflect #267

[lmolkova]

Another reason against active_* when applied to connections is that connection can go idle, while staying open. It's weird to have idle connection in active_connections counter. Current works better as a general term here too.

[trask]

This metric is not (currently) in our initial stability plan, but I'm wondering now if it should be, so that this breaking change can be covered by the OTEL_SEMCONV_STABILITY_OPT_IN flag.

Nevermind, I think the naming convention here is still unclear. It would be good to have consistency across:

• jvm.thread.count
• jvm.class.count
• http.server.current_requests

which ties into #211 and #260 (comment).

[joaopgrassi]

This was closed by mistake by the stale bot. Re-opening