Docs overhaul follow up - c-box, p-box duality

Maciej Kisielewski maciej.kisielewski at
Mon Aug 29 10:28:33 UTC 2016

Hey folks!

As I spent some time improving the docs, some concerns/question came to my
I would like to discuss them, and probably reforge them into future stories.
It all boils down to Checkbox / Plainbox duality.

Checkbox and Checkbox-Converged have practically the same functionality.
Anyone using launchers knows they're running Checkbox. Yet, Plainbox is not
only known to end-users, but it's also required, to run some scenarios,
- starting a provider
- running one, particular job
- listing units

As a result, end-users, or devs starting to hack something in Checkbox*,
are getting perplexed.

Then there's the naming issue. There are plainbox units, providers, and so
on. Perplexity intensifies.

I know that renaming stuff to be checkbox * would be a small revolution, so
first I would like to move all Plainbox functionality (as in $ plainbox
invocation) to Checkbox (-cli).
This way no one will be recommended to run plainbox at any point.

Second step would be to transplant/copy Plainbox docs chapters related to
units syntax (and all else not dev-related) to Checkbox docs.

Third, the aforementioned revolution of renaming stuff, which might not be
worth one's while.

I understand why Checkbox / Plainbox separation came to be, but those two
Checkbox are the only two real Plainbox applications, so I would like to
make them easier to use for all clients and stakeholders.

Oh, and BTW, internally I still want the split of core and app, as it is

Any thoughts?

Have a good one,

More information about the Checkbox-devel mailing list