doc,lib: remove deprecated domain module

[bnoordhuis]

Fixes: #45824

---

Draft PR to check citgm. The REPL was leaning quite heavily on domains so REPL tests are expected to fail. I didn't want to spend time on that for a trial balloon.

I deleted lib/domain.js for now but in the final version it should probably throw an exception (not emit a warning.)

https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker/3060/

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/gyp
• @nodejs/startup

[aduh95]

We need to first runtime deprecate it.

[bnoordhuis]

Note my "draft PR to check citgm" remark (which is inconclusive so far - citgm seems to be in bad shape)

That said... the domain module has basically always been deprecated⁰. Standard procedures are nice but sometimes it makes no sense to follow them.

⁰ it was added in v0.10.0 and deprecated in v1.0.0. We'll not talk about the brown paper bag releases that were v0.12.x.

[aduh95]

We want to keep this entry, it should say Type: End-of-Life, e.g. see

node/doc/api/deprecations.md

Lines 44 to 64 in 4712d60

	### DEP0001: `http.OutgoingMessage.prototype.flush`
	<!-- YAML
	changes:
	- version: v14.0.0
	pr-url: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/31164
	description: End-of-Life.
	- version:
	- v6.12.0
	- v4.8.6
	pr-url: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/10116
	description: A deprecation code has been assigned.
	- version: v1.6.0
	pr-url: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/1156
	description: Runtime deprecation.
	-->
	Type: End-of-Life
	`OutgoingMessage.prototype.flush()` has been removed. Use
	`OutgoingMessage.prototype.flushHeaders()` instead.

[aduh95]

This should be moved to https://nodejs.org/api/errors.html#legacy-nodejs-error-codes instead of being removed.

[Trott]

Draft PR to check citgm.

I might be telling you something you already know, but just in case: You can open a PR like this against your own fork and then put bnoordhuis rather than nodejs as the GITHUB_ORG in the Jenkins build parameter. The upside is you avoid alarming people or attracting PR reviews. The downside is that the results won't be documented in a PR in the main repo, so I'm fine with doing it this way instead.

EDIT: Added some additional labels to hopefully further dissuade people from thinking this is ready for review. Feel free to remove them at any time.

[avivkeller]

(I've removed the blocked label, as this technically isn't blocked by any specific issues)

[avivkeller]

Draft PR to check citgm. The REPL was leaning quite heavily on domains so REPL tests are expected to fail. I didn't want to spend time on that for a trial balloon.

@bnoordhuis see #55204, that should handle the REPL. Once that lands, are you still interested in persueing this PR?