Revert EndUserSpanProcessor integration

[brunobat]

Remove the functionality due to reliability issues.
Mitigates ##39563
The feature will be later re-implemented.

Original implementation: #34595

[quarkus-bot]

/cc @radcortez (opentelemetry)

[quarkus-bot]

Status for workflow Quarkus Documentation CI

This is the status report for running Quarkus Documentation CI on commit f76d812.

✅ The latest workflow run for the pull request has completed successfully.

It should be safe to merge provided you have a look at the other checks in the summary.

⚠️ There are other workflow runs running, you probably need to wait for their status before merging.

[github-actions]

🙈 The PR is closed and the preview is expired.

[quarkus-bot]

Status for workflow Quarkus CI

This is the status report for running Quarkus CI on commit f76d812.

✅ The latest workflow run for the pull request has completed successfully.

It should be safe to merge provided you have a look at the other checks in the summary.

You can consult the Develocity build scans.

[gsmet]

I merged it but I'm not entirely sure how we should handle it in currently maintained branches.

Should we at least backport the removal of the documentation and mark the config as deprecated so that people don't see it in the doc?

[michalvavrik]

+1 for removal via backports because to fix this there would require a lot of work. Fixing it for main is doable.

[gsmet]

Yeah problem is that removing a feature with a backport is definitely too aggressive IMO.

I would:

• Add a warning saying it shouldn't be used
• Remove it from the doc
• Make sure the config doesn't appear in the config reference

That means except if using it could lead to serious issues. In this case, yes, we could discuss dropping it. But we would need a broader discussion than here in the comment section of a PR.

[michalvavrik]

That means except if using it could lead to serious issues. In this case, yes, we could discuss dropping it.

My bit: Risks are ugly warning, unreliable feature. I think raised exceptions won't have recognizable impact on resources.

I think @brunobat will have a plan what to do.

[brunobat]

I agree on creating a backport PR including:

• Add a warning saying it shouldn't be used
• Remove it from the doc
• Make sure the config doesn't appear in the config reference
• Add additional protections to prevent exception throwing in JWT+REST Client+OT: SecurityIdentityProxy exception popping up #39667