Clarify Moneta integration in Circuit Store documentation

[neilvcarvalho]

I found the Circuit Store documentation about Moneta integration confusing, particularly the statement that Moneta "needs to be loaded prior to use." After testing, I confirmed that there's no specific loading order requirement between Circuitbox and Moneta.

This commit updates the documentation to:

• Remove potentially confusing language about loading requirements
• Explicitly state that Circuitbox uses an in-memory store by default
• Present Moneta as an optional alternative storage option
• Preserve the existing Moneta compatibility requirements

These changes should help other developers better understand how to integrate Moneta with Circuitbox if they choose to use an alternative store.

[neilvcarvalho]

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree

[matthewshafer]

After testing, I confirmed that there's no specific loading order requirement between Circuitbox and Moneta.

While it's correct there's no specific loading order requirement when using Moneta with Circuitbox, Circuitbox won't take care of loading Moneta if someone wants to use it. Perhaps there's a different way to word this which reduces confusion but I think something about this is important to mention as Circuitbox 1.x would load (require) Moneta and also had Moneta as a direct dependency in the gemspec.

The other changes to the Readme look good to me and do seem to simplify the Moneta section a bit

[neilvcarvalho]

Thanks! That gives some context I didn't have. I could see that Moneta was a direct dependency at some point and that the commit that changed it was in 2019 (so, long ago), but didn't notice that it was released 2 years ago (so, not that long ago).

I can see two options here, using my own judgement. They aren't mutually exclusive:

1. Append "To use Moneta, add it to your project dependencies." after "for alternative storage options"
2. Highlight that Moneta is not a direct dependency anymore in the upgrade guide. I couldn't find it there.

I think both are important, as the first satisfies new users (me included), and existing users that are in the upgrade process.

I'm going to change the README right away.

[matthewshafer]

I noticed two cases with inconsistent spacing. I've added suggested changes for them. Otherwise the changes look good to me!

[neilvcarvalho]

@matthewshafer Oops, good catch. I pushed an amended commit.

[matthewshafer]

@neilvcarvalho Thanks for working on the updates to the readme!