Revert "Add support for Iceberg table identifiers with special characters (#33293)"

[Abacn]

Reason: performance regression caught by internal tests (Iceberg write spends 100% more time)

half of time spends on IcebergUtils.parseTableIdentifier.

The code path suggests OBJECT_MAPPER.readTree always throws in my test case, and wasted most of time to assemble Exception object.

In general using try {} catch {} for what if clause does is an antipattern.

Possible forward fix could be using a cache.

This reverts commit d6e0b0c.

Please add a meaningful description for your change here

---

Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

• Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example: addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, comment fixes #<ISSUE NUMBER> instead.
• Update CHANGES.md with noteworthy changes.
• If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.

To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md

GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI or the workflows README to see a list of phrases to trigger workflows.

[Abacn]

R: @ahmedabu98

cc: @regadas

A forward fix could be

• Avoid try {} catch {} thus avoid expensive Exception construction

• Use a cache in table identifiers parsing so it won't need to be called every time

[github-actions]

Stopping reviewer notifications for this pull request: review requested by someone other than the bot, ceding control. If you'd like to restart, comment assign set of reviewers

[regadas]

Hi @Abacn ouch, yeah adding cache makes sense to me! Can we avoid the revert if I put up a quick PR with it? Thx!

[Abacn]

@regadas thanks for prompt reply. Please do not worry about revert PR, it's just a generic practice to keep HEAD clean and keep linear history. Add it back is just a matter of another commit.

Since #33293 is approved before I expect a forward fix PR can be reviewed much faster than the original PR. Take your time on fix and feel free to pin us if you have any question

[ahmedabu98]

LGTM