optimize: server compatible io.seata package

[funky-eyes]

• I have registered the PR changes.

Ⅰ. Describe what this PR did

Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?

Ⅲ. Why don't you add test cases (unit test/integration test)?

Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it

Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (7227cc1) 51.95% compared to head (bfcb186) 52.10%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                2.x    #6310      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     51.95%   52.10%   +0.14%     
- Complexity     5174     5202      +28     
============================================
  Files           918      921       +3     
  Lines         32039    32134      +95     
  Branches       3866     3869       +3     
============================================
+ Hits          16647    16744      +97     
+ Misses        13767    13764       -3     
- Partials       1625     1626       +1     

Files	Coverage Δ
...in/java/org/apache/seata/common/DefaultValues.java	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...che/seata/common/exception/JsonParseException.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)
.../org/apache/seata/common/metadata/ClusterRole.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ava/org/apache/seata/common/metadata/Metadata.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...apache/seata/common/metadata/MetadataResponse.java	80.00% <ø> (ø)
...in/java/org/apache/seata/common/metadata/Node.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...java/org/apache/seata/common/util/ConfigTools.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ava/org/apache/seata/common/util/DurationUtil.java	83.33% <ø> (ø)
...a/org/apache/seata/common/util/HttpClientUtil.java	52.45% <ø> (+4.91%)	⬆️
...main/java/org/apache/seata/common/util/IOUtil.java	70.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 103 more

... and 111 files with indirect coverage changes

[xingfudeshi]

LGTM

[ptyin]

Is it more appropriate to put the deprecated classes in the "compatible" folder?

[funky-eyes]

Is it more appropriate to put the deprecated classes in the "compatible" folder?

This is the server-side class, not the client-side, and moving it into compatible will cause the server to rely on unnecessary classes unless a server-compatible is added.
这是server侧的类，而不是client侧，如果移入compatible中会导致server依赖一些不必要的类，除非增加一个server-compatible

[ptyin]

Is it more appropriate to put the deprecated classes in the "compatible" folder?

This is the server-side class, not the client-side, and moving it into compatible will cause the server to rely on unnecessary classes unless a server-compatible is added. 这是server侧的类，而不是client侧，如果移入compatible中会导致server依赖一些不必要的类，除非增加一个server-compatible

Uhhhh, my bad. I forgot this is the server module.

[slievrly]

LGTM