Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-db-jdo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-db-jdo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 39F87739D for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:28:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 98150 invoked by uid 500); 14 Oct 2011 19:28:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jdo-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list jdo-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 98142 invoked by uid 99); 14 Oct 2011 19:28:02 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:28:02 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.212.44] (HELO mail-vw0-f44.google.com) (209.85.212.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:27:56 +0000 Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so1560656vws.31 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.174.38 with SMTP id bp6mr10272267vdc.75.1318620455189; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:27:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.201.136 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:27:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <79B9A3C5-EE73-408C-A7B8-75E99D965DFD@oracle.com> References: <4E857F21.6050506@apache.org> <4E8E794B.4090501@sonic.net> <4E97B2C6.9000005@sonic.net> <79B9A3C5-EE73-408C-A7B8-75E99D965DFD@oracle.com> From: Matthew Adams Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:27:15 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Minutes: JDO TCK Conference Call Friday, Oct 14, 9 am Pacific Time To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org Cc: JDO Expert Group Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org One minor clarification: On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: > =A02. =A0JDO 3.0 dependency on JPA > > 3.0 (and 3.0.1) still depend on JPA 1.0. We decided that 3.1 did not allo= w > use of JPA 2.0 and it doesn't make sense to continue to support JPA 1.0. > Instead, we should just remove any dependency from JDO 3.0 API to JPA. Th= en, > we should look at the tck to see if there are any code dependencies. > This is true, except we are not removing JPA dependencies from JDO 3.0 or 3.0.1, only from JDO 3.1, which is represented by the trunk at the time of this writing. JDO 3.1 will not be dependent upon JPA 2.0, but JDO 2.0-3.0.1 will retain its dependence upon JPA 1.0. -matthew