Rename ConfigureResource -> ConfigureResourceBuilder

[alanwest]

Staging this up based on open question here #3307 (comment).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3411 (4f3e2ed) into main (5842a0a) will decrease coverage by 0.15%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3411      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.21%   86.05%   -0.16%     
==========================================
  Files         261      261              
  Lines        9411     9411              
==========================================
- Hits         8114     8099      -15     
- Misses       1297     1312      +15     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...c/OpenTelemetry/Logs/OpenTelemetryLoggerOptions.cs	78.57% <ø> (ø)
...elemetry/Metrics/MeterProviderBuilderExtensions.cs	63.82% <ø> (ø)
...Telemetry/Trace/TracerProviderBuilderExtensions.cs	90.90% <ø> (ø)
...entation/ExportClient/OtlpGrpcTraceExportClient.cs	35.71% <0.00%> (-42.86%)	⬇️
...xporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol/OtlpTraceExporter.cs	36.36% <0.00%> (-40.91%)	⬇️
...ZPages/Implementation/ZPagesExporterEventSource.cs	56.25% <0.00%> (-6.25%)	⬇️
...metryProtocol/Implementation/ActivityExtensions.cs	91.20% <0.00%> (-3.30%)	⬇️
...nTelemetry/Internal/OpenTelemetrySdkEventSource.cs	77.50% <0.00%> (+2.50%)	⬆️
...lemetry/Internal/SelfDiagnosticsConfigRefresher.cs	89.42% <0.00%> (+2.88%)	⬆️
...emetry.Api/Internal/OpenTelemetryApiEventSource.cs	82.35% <0.00%> (+2.94%)	⬆️

[Rs4178]

Staging this up based on open question here #3307 (comment).

[cijothomas]

I like this name better. Lets wait couple days to give more people to share feedbacks before merge.

[reyang]

It seems the current code are bit random on the local variable naming.
Maybe use resourceBuilder or resBldr consistently across the repo?

[Oberon00]

I liked the old/current name a bit more. Just as in ASP.NET one uses ConfigureServices, not ConfigureServiceCollection. Or this method here, another example where one uses a Builder to configure something but which doesn't have Builder in the name: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/microsoft.aspnetcore.mvc.testing.webapplicationfactory-1.configurewebhost?view=aspnetcore-6.0 I could argue, I don't want to configure the builder, but use the builder to configure the resource(s) that will be created. But I do not have a very strong opinion.

[alanwest]

I liked the old/current name a bit more. Just as in ASP.NET one uses ConfigureServices, not ConfigureServiceCollection. Or this method here, another example where one uses a Builder to configure something but which doesn't have Builder in the name: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/microsoft.aspnetcore.mvc.testing.webapplicationfactory-1.configurewebhost?view=aspnetcore-6.0 I could argue, I don't want to configure the builder, but use the builder to configure the resource(s) that will be created. But I do not have a very strong opinion.

I agree, these are good examples and a good argument for keeping the name as is: ConfigureResource.

[cijothomas]

I liked the old/current name a bit more. Just as in ASP.NET one uses ConfigureServices, not ConfigureServiceCollection. Or this method here, another example where one uses a Builder to configure something but which doesn't have Builder in the name: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/microsoft.aspnetcore.mvc.testing.webapplicationfactory-1.configurewebhost?view=aspnetcore-6.0 I could argue, I don't want to configure the builder, but use the builder to configure the resource(s) that will be created. But I do not have a very strong opinion.

Thanks for explanation. It looks reasonable to me to keep existing name, and abort this PR.