Revisit exposed client properties

[onobc]

1. The Pulsar admin client and the regular client do not support the exact same properties. We should revisit the properties we are making available in spring.pulsar.admin and spring.pulsar.client and make sure they are in parity w/ their respective Pulsar client available properties.

2. PulsarAdministration exposes a constructor that takes in the admin builder whereas the PulsarClientFactoryBean does not expose the builder and instead leverages PulsarClientConfiguration to pass info. Lets make these consistent and remove the builder from the admin and possibly use an intermediary config data class like the latter does.

Background from original issue

By source of truth for the supported properties for both admin and regular pulsar client I really just mean these are the properties we would support. Thanks for the info on their divergence (admin and regular client) @alpreu .

In this case, I bet the actual AdminBuilder and PulsarClientBuilder are the actual final arbiter of what is supported. It feels to me like we should support whatever their respective builders support.

For this PR I think what we have is fine for 1st pass. We should create a follow on ticket to explore this a bit more.

Originally posted by @onobc in #72 (comment)

[onobc]

The properties we expose in spring.pulsar.client and spring.pulsar.administration are inline w/ their respective Pulsar builders ClientBuilder and PulsarAdminBuilder, respectively.