Discontinue rebundling commons reference documentation in implementation projects

[xenoterracide]

I hate this, I kind of get why it's done but what's happening is confusion of what's actually supported in these projects, has a lot of this documentation says it's dependent on the implementation. Then the implementation doesn't actually mention what supported. I think it would be better to have some way that their documentation can either bundle only the parts they support or link back to only the parts they support.

For example I raised the question, And have asked for further documentation in neo4j of whether the Geo types are actually supported. I really couldn't tell from the reference documentation. Source diving shouldn't be required. Back in the day I had similar problem with neo4j and support for Optional. It could have course be argued that some of this is simply a problem with spring data in neo4j, I'm not sure, but I could see how it would easily be ignored to document that stuff since it's bundled in a sense.

[mp911de]

Thanks for bringing this up. The documentation approach stems from a time where we had few store modules with a more or less consistent feature set. We plan to revise our documentation arrangement across the Spring portfolio and will consider how to improve the individual store module documentation with that endeavor.