fix: support JSSE system properties - #175

Isn't this a breaking change?
Consider a case where the default SSLContext for whatever reason doesn't enable the TLS protocol. The existing code using getInstance("TLS") will go through the list of configured providers looking for one that does support TLS, but this new code will not and will fail instead; ulimately forcing a user configuration change to add TLS support in their default context (which is presumably not desirable if it hasn't been configured as such) or to otherwise customize the SSLSocketFactory.

I'm not sure just how significant that risk is, but nonetheless I feel it is a breaking behaviour change and it probably disproportionately impacts server environments with different frontend/backend contexts.

I also have concerns about disableSslVerification (beyond my usual ones about how I dislike that option 😄) - it won't delegate to the default SSLContext instead creating one in the current style, so there will be mismatch in behaviour depending if that toggle is on (beyond the existing one I've just noticed where SSL and TLS may not be necessarily be provided by the same provider anyway) .

Looking at this area of code in general I think we should probably consider the balance of the most common use case vs where customization is required by the user before making a breaking change. For example using cacerts by default is more likely to succeed when connecting to the IBM Cloud services with public certs than using any other configured trust store. Further when running the SDKs, in e.g. an app in a WAS Liberty runtime, then there are some specific caveats around what is honoured and what isn't and expectations for third-party (i.e. non-WAS) code to call SSLSocketFactory.getDefault() rather than SSLContext.getDefault().

In the meantime #174 provides an option for customizing right? via something like:

getHttpClient().newBuilder().sslSocketFactory(...).build()

@ricellis and I discussed this via slack and decided not to go with these changes due to the potential change in default behavior for users. It's not clear how popular mTLS is among our users, so we need to be careful not to potentially break existing (non-mTLS) users in order to solve a problem that has unknown scope/prevalence. I'll be looking at alternatives and will submit a new PR if/when appropriate.