[ISSUE #8829] feat: provide ConfigManagerV2 to make best uses of RocksDB

[lizhanhui]

Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes

To #8829

Brief Description

How Did You Test This Change?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 2.12389% with 553 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 47.05%. Comparing base (7f8667a) to head (b128882).
Report is 66 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...etmq/broker/config/v2/ConsumerOffsetManagerV2.java	0.00%	229 Missing ⚠️
...ocketmq/broker/config/v2/TopicConfigManagerV2.java	0.00%	87 Missing ⚠️
...q/broker/config/v2/SubscriptionGroupManagerV2.java	0.00%	86 Missing ⚠️
...apache/rocketmq/broker/config/v2/ConfigHelper.java	0.00%	57 Missing ⚠️
...pache/rocketmq/broker/config/v2/ConfigStorage.java	0.00%	42 Missing ⚠️
...e/rocketmq/broker/config/v2/SerializationType.java	0.00%	13 Missing ⚠️
...a/org/apache/rocketmq/broker/BrokerController.java	8.33%	6 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
.../org/apache/rocketmq/broker/config/v2/TableId.java	0.00%	10 Missing ⚠️
...apache/rocketmq/broker/config/v2/RecordPrefix.java	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
.../apache/rocketmq/broker/config/v2/TablePrefix.java	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
... and 1 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             develop    #8856      +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage      47.31%   47.05%   -0.27%     
- Complexity     11612    11639      +27     
=============================================
  Files           1290     1304      +14     
  Lines          90293    90984     +691     
  Branches       11609    11668      +59     
=============================================
+ Hits           42724    42812      +88     
- Misses         42292    42884     +592     
- Partials        5277     5288      +11     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[RongtongJin]

Hi, @lizhanhui , we have been using version v1 in the production environment, and it's likely that some community users are doing the same. From a code perspective, a compatibility upgrade from v1 to v2 is not feasible. Given the need for compatibility upgrade, I think it's essential to add support for persisting lmq consumer offsets in version v1.

[lizhanhui]

Hi, @lizhanhui , we have been using version v1 in the production environment, and it's likely that some community users are doing the same. From a code perspective, a compatibility upgrade from v1 to v2 is not feasible. Given the need for compatibility upgrade, I think it's essential to add support for persisting lmq consumer offsets in version v1.

Let's do this in the next pull request. This pull request has been kind of too large.

[tianliuliu]

LGTM