Proposal: Transaction Names

[FabianKoestring]

Wouldnt it be better to send the real URL as a name instead of the called route? If hou have dynamic routes and you want to analyse with specific paramters you cant see which parameters have a huge load time or throughput or smth. You only see the route.

Nice Module!

[Rockstar04]

I think this would be great as a configurable option. I'm sure some people would want to see the URL and other would want to see the route name.

[neeckeloo]

I propose a pull request according to your proposal. What do you think about? #19

[Rockstar04]

That seems perfect. It allows for either suggestion here, as well as allowing people to create their own naming strategies.

[FabianKoestring]

@neeckeloo Looks Good

[neeckeloo]

What would you do concerning console request? Should we force the use of the route name?

[Rockstar04]

I think that could be left up to the user if they wanted to create a custom transaction provider that could do something specific for a console route.

You have given us great starting point and people can do their own thing, or create PR's to expand whats provided with this package.

[neeckeloo]

To manage both cases, I can perhaps propose this configuration format:

return [
    'newrelic' => [
        'transaction_name_provider' => [
            'http_request'    => 'NewRelic\TransactionNameProvider\HttpRequestUrlProvider',
            'console_request' => 'NewRelic\TransactionNameProvider\RouteNameProvider',
        ],
    ],
];

By default, the module would be configured with RouteNameProvider for HTTP and console requests.