Use consistent package space for newrelic registry

[ebullient]

I recommend keeping all resources for this registry inside a newrelic package space (rather than overlapping with io.micrometer), as that can be a strong indicator of who wrote (or at least, who is maintaining) the code.

I would start here as a first pass towards an officially maintained 3rd party driver referenced in micrometer docs (I work for none of the parties concerned.. it is only a recommendation based on what I would consider. ;)

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[breedx-nr]

Hi @ebullient. Thanks for submitting this. I was around during the inception of this project, and I believe that the original intent was to try and PR this work back into the main micrometer repo...and I think that's the reason those packages were chosen originally.

Clearly it hasn't really gone that route, and so this change probably makes sense. 👍

I do want to chat with some folks here to get consensus around our approach, but this change does seem like the right thing.

Thanks again, we will let you know.

[jasonjkeller]

Yea, as @breedx-nr mentioned we were hoping to replace the old registry with the new one in this repo so we followed the same naming convention. Eventually we would like to archive this repo and replace the source here: https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer/tree/master/implementations/micrometer-registry-new-relic

I believe those efforts are currently held up by https://github.com/newrelic/micrometer-registry-newrelic/issues/46 which looks like it just went inactive. I'll see if we can get those efforts revived again. :)

I do agree though, it is a bit painful seeing classes in this project use the io.micrometer.newrelic package name while the artifact itself uses a different name for the groupId:

<dependency>
        <groupId>com.newrelic.telemetry</groupId>
        <artifactId>micrometer-registry-new-relic</artifactId>
        <version>0.5.0</version>
    </dependency>

[ebullient]

Yea, as @breedx-nr mentioned we were hoping to replace the old registry with the new one in this repo so we followed the same naming convention. Eventually we would like to archive this repo and replace the source here: https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer/tree/master/implementations/micrometer-registry-new-relic

I believe those efforts are currently held up by #46 which looks like it just went inactive. I'll see if we can get those efforts revived again. :)

I do agree though, it is a bit painful seeing classes in this project use the io.micrometer.newrelic package name while the artifact itself uses a different name for the groupId:

<dependency>
        <groupId>com.newrelic.telemetry</groupId>
        <artifactId>micrometer-registry-new-relic</artifactId>
        <version>0.5.0</version>
    </dependency>

That is what flagged my interest to begin with. ;)

From an ongoing maintenance perspective, I think that's a decision you guys need to make. This is (obviously) my suggestion. If you switch to maintaining here, then this is what I would recommend re: naming (naming things is hard, so maybe I made a silly choice).

What I'll try next is some special sauce for Spring.. you'll want that shipped as a different maven artifact (do you want a different project or shift this around to produce two artifacts?)

[jasonjkeller]

@ebullient I think we'll likely go ahead with these changes and move all of the packages to com.newrelic.telemetry.micrometer. If/when we end up moving this repo to the micrometer Github org then we can change it back then. :)

Can you clarify the last bit about shipping two different artifacts? I'm not sure I've connected the dots on that yet. I assume we continue publishing this artifact as is and the second (new) artifact is something specifically related to the Spring auto-config special sauce?

Unless the codebase for the new artifact is a massive or reusable elsewhere I'd lean towards just making it a subproject of this repo.

[ebullient]

Can you clarify the last bit about shipping two different artifacts? I'm not sure I've connected the dots on that yet. I assume we continue publishing this artifact as is and the second (new) artifact is something specifically related to the Spring auto-config special sauce?

Exactly. ;)

You could make this a single repo that creates/builds/publishes two maven artifacts, or you could use a second repo for the other artifact. In either case, the other artifact is the spring special sauce. ;)

[jasonjkeller]

@ebullient I guess if the spring special sauce is specific to this micrometer registry then let's proceed with a single repo that produces both artifacts.

I'll go ahead and merge this PR.