There actually is at least one case where:
Maybe we did not discuss it long enough in the Spec Committee, because IMO above example makes perfect sense to have
instead, but for projects that combine spec and API Maybe the „-api“ should be optional, which the side-note also permits ;-)
Which is why in the current layout unless Jakarta Data went to split the „spec“ part into its own repo „data“ feels better.
Ok, thanks for the pointer, guess then others like „security“ will have to change their names soon?
Although the sentence
As noted above, separate repositories for API and TCK is the typical layout. Specification projects are free to organize their specification, API and TCK how they see fit as long as all repositories start with the short name of the related specification.
Puts the whole naming convention in limbo again if projects can also deviate from it?
It is according to the naming standard being put forward by the Spec Committee.
Why was „data“ called „data-api“ again while every other Jakarta EE repository has „api“ underneath as a folder:
Why was there an exception for Jakarta Data?
Maybe there was a misunderstanding between Otavio and Ivar, because I heard in the call something about the TCK being separate, but that still means API and Spec are under that repository just like all the others and „data-api/api“ plus „data-api/spec“ just sound weird.
Or is the plan to have „data-api“ and a separate „data-spec“ repo here?
data-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://accounts.eclipse.org
Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration.