Revisit need of Map.Update<Type> and Map.Insert<Type>

[dmitryax]

We need to make sure that all the pdata API is needed before declaring 1.0.

Problem with Map.Update<Type> and Map.Insert<Type> is that they cannot be applied to all the types. Map.Upsert... methods that require returning a value (e.g. Map.UpsertEmpty or Map.UpsertEmptyMap) cannot have clean and useful equivalents for Map.Update... and Map.Insert....

Usage of Update... in contrib is very limited. There are only few places where it's actually needed. Most of Insert... usages in contrib can be replaced with Upsert... since there is no data under the key.

All the use cases when Update... and Insert... are really needed can be replaced with a combination of Get and Upsert....

Removing Update... and Insert... helps us to keep the Map API concise and consistent. Upsert... methods can be potentially renamed to Put....

[bogdandrutu]

Map.Update<Type> where marked as deprecated and will be removed next release.

[dmitryax]

@bogdandrutu Looks like we are left with 11 Insert occurrences in contrib that cannot be replaced without changing the functionality.

It seems a small enough number to replace them with Get->Upsert. WDYT?

[bogdandrutu]

@dmitryax agreed, for the moment does not seem that important to offer "Insert" like functionality. Let's deprecate, and we should finalize the name for "Upsert" since that confused lots of people (everyone was using "Insert" as default)

[bogdandrutu]

@dmitryax only one task left, to find a better name than "Upsert". I think we can close this and open a new issue for that.

[dmitryax]

@bogdandrutu Submitted #6059