Documentation review

[paulajulve]

Most of it are style changes to the way the README file explains the uses of the library. Ideally, I would like to break down this file into several files with links, making the main file more of an index, easier to get a high level view from without going into detail. But I'll leave that for a potential future PR.

There are also a couple of behaviour changes:

• default address connection for clients and servers on 127.0.0.1:8080
• capitalisation of BroadCast function to Broadcast, to reflect it's a single word

Both are in separate commits to be able to be either accepted or discarded easily.

[eloylp]

Hi @paulajulve , many thanks for your contributions ! 🏗️

I like the idea you mentioned about splitting the README.md into multiple files and then make an index which would point to them. We could take a look later. Maybe wait for the incoming features, which are going to add more docs and then make the refactor.

I see there are parts of the documentation changes like:

-  "the user also has access to all low level observability middlewares"
+ "you have access to all low level observability middlewares"

My thoughts: I consider the use of a third person like narrative its more appropriate for technical docs. We dont know who is reading them. It could be a user or just a reviewer. By using the third person narrative, we leave that assignment to the readers brain 🧠 . I would like to know your thoughts/opinions on this 💭

I think we should point this PR to the develop branch. Also, follow the CHANGELOG.md guidelines, which i think in this case would be to add this PR link to the unreleased section. This its already reflected in docs, but maybe they are not clear enough. Just let me know and we can change them. The idea is to buffer all changes in develop and then make a release, whenever we consider there are enough, meaningful features for users.

Looks like there is a failing test. Some days ago, i experimented the same in other Cis, just restarted them to make the CI pass. But of course, its not a good solution. I think its time to move the CI log into an issue, and start solving the problem in a separate work stream. Here is the issue . Please, in the meanwhile , feel free to just restart the pipeline.