# Objective
This is a necessary precursor to #9122 (this was split from that PR to
reduce the amount of code to review all at once).
Moving `!Send` resource ownership to `App` will make it unambiguously
`!Send`. `SubApp` must be `Send`, so it can't wrap `App`.
## Solution
Refactor `App` and `SubApp` to not have a recursive relationship. Since
`SubApp` no longer wraps `App`, once `!Send` resources are moved out of
`World` and into `App`, `SubApp` will become unambiguously `Send`.
There could be less code duplication between `App` and `SubApp`, but
that would break `App` method chaining.
## Changelog
- `SubApp` no longer wraps `App`.
- `App` fields are no longer publicly accessible.
- `App` can no longer be converted into a `SubApp`.
- Various methods now return references to a `SubApp` instead of an
`App`.
## Migration Guide
- To construct a sub-app, use `SubApp::new()`. `App` can no longer
convert into `SubApp`.
- If you implemented a trait for `App`, you may want to implement it for
`SubApp` as well.
- If you're accessing `app.world` directly, you now have to use
`app.world()` and `app.world_mut()`.
- `App::sub_app` now returns `&SubApp`.
- `App::sub_app_mut` now returns `&mut SubApp`.
- `App::get_sub_app` now returns `Option<&SubApp>.`
- `App::get_sub_app_mut` now returns `Option<&mut SubApp>.`
# Objective
Fixes#11411
## Solution
- Added a simple example how to create and configure custom schedules
that are run by the `Main` schedule.
- Spot checked some of the API docs used, fixed `App::add_schedule` docs
that referred to a function argument that was removed by #9600.
## Open Questions
- While spot checking the docs, I noticed that the `Schedule` label is
stored in a field called `name` instead of `label`. This seems
unintuitive since the term label is used everywhere else. Should we
change that field name? It was introduced in #9600. If so, I do think
this change would be out of scope for this PR that mainly adds the
example.
