Draft: Change API of staging mode

[anthony-murphy]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

🔗 Found some broken links! 💔

Run a link check locally to find them. See
https://github.com/microsoft/FluidFramework/wiki/Checking-for-broken-links-in-the-documentation for more information.

linkcheck output

> [email protected] ci:check-links /home/runner/work/FluidFramework/FluidFramework/docs
> start-server-and-test "npm run serve -- --no-open" 3000 check-links

1: starting server using command "npm run serve -- --no-open"
and when url "[ 'http://127.0.0.1:3000' ]" is responding with HTTP status code 200
running tests using command "npm run check-links"


> [email protected] serve
> docusaurus serve --no-open

[SUCCESS] Serving "build" directory at: http://localhost:3000/

> [email protected] check-links
> linkcheck http://localhost:3000 --skip-file skipped-urls.txt

Crawling...

http://localhost:3000/docs/data-structures/tree
- (36:97) 'the Shar..' => http://localhost:3000/docs/api/tree (HTTP 404)

http://localhost:3000/docs/data-structures/tree/
- (36:97) 'the Shar..' => http://localhost:3000/docs/api/tree (HTTP 404)

http://localhost:3000/docs/data-structures/tree/schema-definition
- (30:128) 'SharedTr..' => http://localhost:3000/docs/api/tree (HTTP 404)

http://localhost:3000/docs/start/tree-start
- (44:4) 'the API ..' => http://localhost:3000/docs/api/tree/schemafactory-class (HTTP 404)
- (61:7) 'the API' => http://localhost:3000/docs/api/tree/treechangeevents-interface (HTTP 404)


Stats:
  158264 links
    1304 destination URLs
    1535 URLs ignored
       0 warnings
       3 errors

 ELIFECYCLE  Command failed with exit code 1.

[ChumpChief]

It looks like you're using this handle to approximate a mutex. I would agree that mutually exclusive ownership of the staging mode state is a requirement, but I'd also argue that if the customer is in a state where they've lost sight of who might turn staging mode on/off then they're in trouble anyway. Having a failable enterStagingMode() seems annoying to account for on the customer side too, invites weird patterns like waitForAndEnableStagingMode().

I think the better solution is to keep it consolidated at the container runtime level in FF, and if the customer wants to broaden its visibility then they have the option to dole out the capability in whatever way fits their need.

[anthony-murphy]

do you have any thoughts on what that would look like? maybe create prototype, as i'm not sure how to do that is the abstract.

[ChumpChief]

Sure, here's an example. Description has a second variation too:
#23982