depend on new Bitmap interface

[mschoch]

this removes dependency on roaring bitmaps

[mschoch]

OK, so this is the start of a multi-part proposal. The other major parts can be found here:

Zapx changes (would need to be cherry-picked to all other branches as well):
blevesearch/zapx#65

Bleve changes (confined to scorch):
blevesearch/bleve#1557

Why?

1. The intent of the scorch_segment_api is to allow for innovation and plugging in new implementations. But, the hard dependency on roaring bitmaps meant all implementations had to use that library. By switching to this interface, we focus on the required behaviors, and not the implementation choice.
2. Having a 3rd-party dependency exposed as part of the API was problematic, as changes in that library can affect our own API promises, and trigger unnecessary semantic version numbering changes.

Questions

Some of the Bitmap methods take other Bitmaps as method parameters, are they expected to work with other implementations? No, as of today we allow for implementations to follow the same rule we use with Segment merging. You are only required to work with your own implementation, and you are expected to panic if this is violated. In summary, all segments in an index must use the same Segment implementation, and all segments must use the same Bitmap implementation.

Status

There are some rough spots in this worth discussing further, but I wanted to float this and get an initial reaction.

[abhinavdangeti]

Looks great to me, especially the go.mod.

[mschoch]

@abhinavdangeti I generally agree. To me, the API package and bleve side are almost obvious improvements. The possible downside is some perf hit from type assertions in zapx code, and in one case a new allocation (slice of different type).

Also, I would be interested in feedback on how I rolled the top-level roaring.XYZ methods which return new objects, into the API based on existing objects. I felt it was kind of OK, as it avoids having to go back to the segment plugin to find another method. By kind-of-ok, what I mean is that the 2 ones with 2 arguments, making the method receiver the first argument was natural. However, the HeapOr takes variable args, and so converting it to use the method receiver as one of the arguments was more confusing...