Rename Start() to Run() since it's a blocking call

[nilebox]

Rename Start() to Run() to follow the naming pattern used in Go, e.g. see blocking Cmd.Run vs non-blocking Cmd.Start.

Same as #607 but keeping original method for backward compatibility. We can keep it for a few releases before deleting.

[pjanotti]

Start really gives the impression that it won't wait for the app to exit (see components Start methods). Since the break (when Start is removed) is trivial I'm for it.

[owais]

👍

[tigrannajaryan]

This is a breaking change of an exported public function. The improvement is not worth it.
Ignore this, I misunderstood the change.

[tigrannajaryan]

However, I still think it is not worth it. We end up with 2 functions. It is even more confusing than just using the name Start instead of Run.

[owais]

I think it's worth it given the minimal impact it'll have now vs confusion it might create a year later. I'd even go as far as returning an error from Start() that says the developer should use Run() instead. It's a minimal, low-impact change and I don't think it'll result in anyone spending any more time on upgrading their collector dependency that they already would.

[tigrannajaryan]

I am going to close this as "won't accept" unless someone has arguments which I am missing.

This change adds an duplicate function that does the same thing as another existing function. What's the end game? Are we keeping both? If we intend to retire one it means more work needs to be done, we need to announce a breaking change and fix contrib that relies on Start. I think these all is not worth the time everyone has to spend on it. Start is an OK name, not ideal, but will do.

@nilebox your contributions are highly welcome and I believe you are already contributing much higher value PRs by doing the OTLP implementation. I hope you don't mind if I block low ROI items like this, happy to discuss further to explain my position if it is not clear.

[tigrannajaryan]

Closing since I don't see objections. We can reopen if needed.

[nilebox]

If we intend to retire one it means more work needs to be done, we need to announce a breaking change and fix contrib that relies on Start. I think these all is not worth the time everyone has to spend on it.

As someone who has spent significant time to rebase our internal code on v0.3.0 and then v0.4.0 and address all breaking changes, I still think that this particular change would have been very small and harmless.