Should `ListenableFuture` be renamed to `Promise`

[jentfoo]

Should `ListenableFuture` be renamed to `Promise`

[lwahlmeier]

I am not necessarily apposed to the change. I assume it would still extend java.util.concurrent.Future? I do also think alot of people know the JS promise syntax then/catch/finally:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise

Would we also want implement those apis? I think it could be a good thing just for easy of use for other people, though I can see how having both could be messy/confusing also.

I think both names describe what the object is well enough, and I dont really care about class name lengths at all.

[jentfoo]

Alright, because of the impact involved lets go ahead and not do this rename right now. Thanks for the input, if others want to weigh in feel free!