Add log appender / bridge to glossary

[jack-berg]

Related to #2911.

cc @dyladan who brought up naming in the 3/13 maintainers SIG.

[dyladan]

I thought in the meeting we agreed to use only one term. Using both terms is unlikely to reduce user confusion.

[dyladan]

I thought in the meeting we agreed to use only one term. Using both terms is unlikely to reduce user confusion.

[jack-berg]

As much as I'd like to have a single term, after thinking about it more, I think there's too much momentum behind both terms. Appender is a popular term in the logging domain and is used in multiple language ecosystems. Authors of these components are going to inevitably call them appenders. Bridge is a useful term in the spec, and is used in the opencensus, opentracing, and metric producer specs. These components are definitely bridges in the same sense the term is used elsewhere.

I think we should standardize on the term "bridge" across the spec to refer to any component that bridges data into OpenTelemetry from another API / framework, but also be ok with aliases for these components that reflect the domain.

[reyang]

I think we should standardize on the term "bridge" across the spec to refer to any component that bridges data into OpenTelemetry from another API / framework, but also be ok with aliases for these components that reflect the domain.

Personally (very subjective), I prefer "provider" than "bridge" because "bridge" sounds like a bi-directional thing to me. But I'm 100% supportive of whatever term as long as we 1) make it explicit/clear 2) stick to the one that we picked.

[tigrannajaryan]

I think our preference should be to use the term "bridge" but in some contexts it is inevitable that we need to mention the "appender" because that's the term used by those external libraries. I think defining both in the glossary is the right approach.