[suggestion] Get rid of "rustisms" in the configuration reference

[0x009922]

Feature request

For the end user, it doesn't make sense:

• to mention things like Option<..>, Option<Option<..>> and explaining "what does it mean to them"
• to say that some field is of type std::path::PathBuf when it simply means that it is a string
• to mention structs like PublicKey, PrivateKey, PeerId without explaining their structure

Configuration parameters types and values examples should be explained in respect of the configuration format itself, i.e. JSON (or TOML #3499). In other words, use null, number, string and other format-related types.

Motivation

Make clear to user what they should put into the configuration.

[appetrosyan]

I'd suggest expanding the tutorial section with these structures and explaining what those mean and what to do about them. Rust-isms aren't a problem in and of themselves, Iroha has many Rust sensibilities anyway. The problem is that they're all undocumented.

[0x009922]

I'd suggest expanding the tutorial section with these structures and explaining what those mean and what to do about them.

Yes, I am talking about that. The point is to explain such structures not in terms of Rust, but in terms of the config format (e.g. as JSON schema).

[appetrosyan]

Being more precise with our language helps the potential implementor.

[0x009922]

Auto-generated configuration reference was removed. New reference:

• Tracking Issue for Configuration Reference as per RFC iroha-2-docs#392