Update method names for client registrations

[sebastienros]

Fixes #1510

We may consider different names based on taste. Sometimes the name matches the client type, and sometimes not.

Examples:

• AddRabbitMQClient(), maybe remove the MQ. The client name is IConnection.
• AddRedisClient(), the client name is IConnectionMultiplexer, I think it's ok.
• AddCosmosClient(), the client name is CosmosClient but might sound better with AddCosmosDBClient.

Microsoft Reviewers: Open in CodeFlow

[davidfowl]

Do we want to add new ones and deprecate the old ones?

[sebastienros]

Do we want to add new ones and deprecate the old ones?

So ship a preview (at least) with deprecations, to provide a hint about how to update existing apps? I like it.

[davidfowl]

So ship a preview (at least) with deprecations, to provide a hint about how to update existing apps? I like it.

Yep.

[eerhardt]

So ship a preview (at least) with deprecations, to provide a hint about how to update existing apps?

Make sure we log an issue in the correct milestone to remove these deprecated methods. We don't want to ship GA with them.

[davidfowl]

#2417

[sebastienros]

I pushed a brand new set of changes with the feedback I got. Now it keeps the same prefixes as before with the added "Client" suffix when necessary. And the existing one is marked as [Obsolete].

[DamianEdwards]

What do folks think about shortening these?

Suggested change

	builder.AddAzureBlobServiceClient("blob");
	builder.AddAzureTableServiceClient("table");
	builder.AddAzureQueueServiceClient("queue");
	builder.AddAzureBlobsClient("blob");
	builder.AddAzureTablesClient("table");
	builder.AddAzureQueuesClient("queue");

[eerhardt]

The underlying class names are:

• Azure.Storage.Blobs.BlobServiceClient
• Azure.Data.Tables.TableServiceClient
• Azure.Storage.Queues.QueueServiceClient

Is it confusing if we drop "Service" from these names? In general I like to stick with the naming of the underlying thing. But agree that @DamianEdwards's suggestion looks cleaner.

[davidfowl]

Keep the underlying names, that way we don't need to think too much 😄

[DamianEdwards]

FWIW we're adding Client to all the methods which happens to match the underlying types in this case but not all cases.

[davidfowl]

I won’t die on this hill but we should optimize for less case by case naming conventions.

I could go with either.

[DamianEdwards]

I think we should aim to go with something generic like Add[LogicalName]Client, e.g. AddRedisClient, AddAzureBlobsClient, AddSqlClient, etc. (obvious exception for EF Core related methods that operate on a DbContext).

[davidfowl]

Lets close then.

[sebastienros]

Lets close then.

Is that "Just do it"?

[davidfowl]

Yea

[sebastienros]

Done, also changed AddAzureKeyVaultSecretsClient