Update all async API methods to use "Async" suffix

[daviwil]

In our work to clean up the API for a stable 1.0 release later this year, we'll need to decide whether we want to use the "Async" suffix on any async methods so that their usage is clear. I personally don't like the suffix but I can understand why it's useful. I wonder if the general guidelines for the usage of this suffix will go away as more and more .NET API methods become async.

Thoughts?

[rkeithhill]

I think async methods should be suffixed with Async. The Microsoft prescribed guidance is:

The name of an async method, by convention, ends with an "Async" suffix.

From https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh191443.aspx.

I see Stephen Cleary using the convention consistently in the "Concurrency in C# Cookbook". Yep, been reading through it. Thanks for the recommend. :-)

[daviwil]

It's a good book! Alright, we'll use *Async. It'd definitely eliminate confusion about which methods should be called with await. Any new async methods you add in the meantime, feel free to use the Async suffix.

[rkeithhill]

Will do.

[dee-see]

Is this still planned? I don't mind doing it. Should the PR be against the 2.0.0 branch?

[TylerLeonhardt]

It's on the backlog for sure - no one's actively working on it AFAIK. Against 2.0.0 is probably the right approach!

[dee-see]

Ok I'll pick this one up then if it's up for grabs for anyone.

Should a method that returns a Task but isn't marked with async be suffixed with -Async anyway?

[TylerLeonhardt]

If it returns a task, then the function is expecting it to be awaited so I say add it.

[NageshAndani]

This issue needs to be closed as it is fixed by @dee-see #792