Description
Component(s)
extension/opamp
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Today, if someone wants to try out OpAMP, the have to either make use of the Supervisor or the Bridge; both are in alpha/experimental state, and require altering the deployment model of collecotrs.
Describe the solution you'd like
I think that it might be worth looking into allowing opampextension to offer the AcceptsRemoteConfig capability.
Doing this could greatly simplify how people try OpAMP for the first time. Once they've gotten used to the how OpAMP works, they can graduate to the supervisor and bridge to make use of the other capabilities.
I believe that this change could help with wider adoption of the OpAMP protocol before solving scalability problems like allowing supervisors to manage multiple collectors.
Today, extensions can only be notified of configuration changes but don't have access to a config resolver in order to make use of configuration changes, so this might be not as easy as it sounds; like @evan-bradley mentioned on the following Slack conversation there are other caveats to think about like handling runtime configuration errors and self-identification, but nevertheless I'd like to hear whether you think it's worth a shot and whether it's been revisited in the past.
Describe alternatives you've considered
No response
Additional context
No response