Update the async runtime

[0xOmarA]

Summary

This PR updates the way in which we handled async tasks and Futures in the codebase exposing the BlockingExecutor which allows for a simple way to execute async tasks in a blocking fashion and from blocking functions.

Description

This PR implements the changes discussed in #40. More specifically, I changed how the codebase handles async tasks and Futures to allow for us to more easily execute async tasks, which we might need soon as seen in #39. We still maintain all of the core characteristics of the previous solution in that the tokio runtime runs in a separate thread and all communication to and from the runtime happens over channels.

This change is heavily inspired by our existing implementation. In fact, one could go as far as saying that it's just syntactic sugar over our previous implementation. It also adds new capabilities to the tokio runtime thread such as allowing it to catch panics gracefully so that a panic in one async task doesn't stop the entire code.

One of the nice things about this change is that we no longer need to define any new structs or trait implementations for tasks that we want to run on this executor, making use of it is as simple as:

fn blocking_function() {
    let result = BlockingExecutor::execute(async move {
        tokio::time::sleep(std::time::Duration::from_secs(1)).await;
        0xFFu8
    })
    .expect("Computation failed");

    assert_eq!(result, 0xFF);
}

[xermicus]

LGTM! modulo some nits

[xermicus]

This should be unnecessary as it's the default anyways?

[0xOmarA]

Ah good point, I was trying to be more explicit about it but I'm happy to just resort to keeping it implicit.

[xermicus]

Suggested change

	// Creating a one-shot channel for this task that will be used to send and receive the
	// response of the task.
	// Creating a one-shot channel for this task that will be used to send and receive the
	// response of the task.

If anything the comment should say why you use a one-shot channel (don't just re-formulate the following code statement in human language).

[0xOmarA]

@xermicus Thank you for the review! I realized that I over-commented a lot of parts of the code 😅 I accepted the suggestions you made and went back removing some of the older comments and only keeping comments where they're appropriate and meaningful. Let me know how it looks now

[xermicus]

Thanks!

[xermicus]

@xermicus Thank you for the review! I realized that I over-commented a lot of parts of the code 😅 I accepted the suggestions you made and went back removing some of the older comments and only keeping comments where they're appropriate and meaningful. Let me know how it looks now

No worries. Looks much more concise now thank you!