4.0 Big transfer and Write traffic shaping issues

Motivation:
Several issues were shown by various ticket (#2900 #2956).
Also use the improvement on writability user management from #3036.

Issue #2900
When a huge amount of data are written, the current behavior of the
TrafficShaping handler is to limit the delay to 15s, whatever the delay
the previous write has. This is wrong, and when a huge amount of writes
are done in a short time, the traffic is not correctly shapened.

Moreover, there is a high risk of OOM if one is not using in his/her own
handler for instance ChannelFuture.addListener() to handle the write
bufferisation in the TrafficShapingHandler.

This fix use the "user-defined writability flags" from #3036 to
allow the TrafficShapingHandlers to "user-defined" managed writability
directly, as for reading, thus using the default isWritable() and
channelWritabilityChanged().
This allows for instance HttpChunkedInput to be fully compatible.

The "bandwidth" compute on write is only on "acquired" write orders, not
on "real" write orders, which is wrong from statistic point of view.

Issue #2956
When using GlobalTrafficShaping, every write (and read) are
synchronized, thus leading to a drop of performance.
ChannelTrafficShaping is not touched by this issue since synchronized is
then correct (handler is per channel, so the synchronized).

Modifications:
The current write delay computation takes into account the previous
write delay and time to check is the 15s delay (maxTime) is really
exceeded or not (using last scheduled write time). The algorithm is
simplified and in the same time more accurate.

This proposal uses the #3036 improvement on user-defined writability
flags.

When the real write occurs, the statistics are update accordingly on a
new attribute (getRealWriteThroughput()).

To limit the synchronisations, all synchronized on
GlobalTrafficShapingHandler on submitWrite were removed. They are
replaced with a lock per channel (since synchronization is still needed
to prevent unordered write per channel), as in the sendAllValid method
for the very same reason.
Also all synchronized on TrafficCounter on read/writeTimeToWait() are
removed as they are unnecessary since already locked before by the
caller.
Still the creation and remove operations on lock per channel (PerChannel
object) are synchronized to prevent concurrency issue on this critical
part, but then limited.

Additionnal changes:
1) Use System.nanoTime() instead of System.currentTimeMillis() and
minimize calls
2) Remove / 10 ° 10 since no more sleep usage
3) Use nanoTime instead of currentTime such that time spend is computed,
not real time clock. Therefore the "now" relative time (nanoTime based)
is passed on all sub methods.
4) Take care of removal of the handler to force write all pending writes
and release read too
8) Review Javadoc to explicit:

- recommandations to take into account isWritable

- recommandations to provide reasonable message size according to
traffic shaping limit

- explicit "best effort" traffic shaping behavior when changing
configuration dynamically

Result:
The traffic shaping is more stable, even with a huge number of writes in
short time by taking into consideration last scheduled write time.

The current implementation of TrafficShapingHandler using user-defined
writability flags and default isWritable() and
fireChannelWritabilityChanged works as expected.

The statistics are more valuable (asked write vs real write).

Various examples are shown in one added example (example/traffic), and
in particular how a user handler might managed the write to prevent OOM:

- using the ChannelFuture.addListener(new GenericFutureListener>() one
by one, or by set of writes

- using the ctx.channel().isWritable() and channelWritabilityChanged()

- using a code as HttpChunkedInput to send the chunks according to the
channelWritabilityChanged() (softWritability is needed)

- using no specific check, but with the risk of OOM (no control on the
bufferisation made by the TSH)

The Global TrafficShapingHandler should now have less "global"
synchronization, hoping to the minimum, but still per Channel as needed.
Well, I'm not against making them packaged, but what if someone else want to extend the handler (as it is suggested to be for some methods) ?
I agree that most of the variables shall be packaged, but for the methods, I'm not so sure...
Any advice on key usage example?