Change ConcurrenyMIddleware service extensions method

[Kahbazi]

Change ConcurrenyMIddleware service extensions method based on #12453 (comment)

[Tratcher]

Breaking change procedures require keeping the old extensions and adding new ones.

[analogrelay]

As @Tratcher said, this is an unfortunate situation since it really shouldn't have been done this way but now that it was, it's a breaking change to fix it :). I expect what we would prefer to do is this:

1. Add a services.AddConcurrencyLimiter() extension that returns a ConcurrencyLimiterBuilder (like we do with other things like SignalR:

   aspnetcore/src/SignalR/server/Core/src/SignalRDependencyInjectionExtensions.cs

   Line 34 in c84e37f

   var builder = new SignalRServerBuilder(services);

   )
2. Hang the AddQueuePolicy and AddStackPolicy extension methods off that instead.

But we'd also need to leave the existing methods in place for 5.0 at least (marked as obsolete) and then consider removing them later.

[Kahbazi]

There is an open issue (#19823) on adding more feature to Concurency Limiter. Should I close this PR to prevent future breaking changes since the naming can be handled in the issue?

[halter73]

There is an open issue (#19823) on adding more feature to Concurency Limiter. Should I close this PR to prevent future breaking changes since the naming can be handled in the issue?

@Kahbazi Sorry for the slow feedback on this, but the short answer is yes, we've decided to close this.

This PR clearly improves on what we currently have in our opinion, but we think we are going to want to make further configuration changes to support endpoint-based concurrency limiting (#20835) with named policies similar to how CorsOptions works today. It seems unlikely that endpoint-based concurrency will make it in time for .NET 5, but even so we don't want to make a breaking change in one major release just to break the same API in the next. I plan to file an issue with the new proposed design soon.

[halter73]

The design we want is very similar to what you outlined in #19823 (comment). I'm looking at that as the starting point for the new proposal. I'll probably just respond to that issue.