commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrian Crum <>
Subject Re: [lang] What about Duration class? (org.apache.commons.lang.time)
Date Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:47:24 GMT
On 1/26/2012 6:59 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> <>  wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Benedikt Ritter
>> <>  wrote:
>>>> But i found only discussions about duration&    joda-time dated 2004.
>>>> (
>>>> Now i really need in Duration functionality (especially such as
>>>> Duration.parse(String)).
>>> I heard about joda-time a while ago. My impression is, that the joda project
>>> is not that active anymore (please correct me, if I'm wrong). So I would
>>> vouch for additions to lang regarding durations. What I'm also really
>>> missing in lang.time is conversation of durations. For example:
>>> DurationUtils.convertToMinutes(long seconds).
>> Joda Time is imho a great lib. Before a few weeks I replaced all the
>> JDK stuff with Joda and it really saved my life. There was a release
>> in July 2011 or so and my impression is more this lib is stable and
>> does not need many releases. Actually I can't imagine a feature I miss
>> in Joda at the moment.
>>>> I don't understand the Commons point on this issue.
>>>> - Commons Lang doesn't need in own implementation of this
>>>> functionality and you suggest use joda-time?
>>>> - Commons Lang needs in simple&    lightweight implementation of Duration?
>>>> Also i cannot find correspond issue in jira (but Eric Crampton in 2004
>>>> wrote about
>>>> "Commons Lang task list that there is a need for DateRange/Duration
>>>> classes").
>>> As you said, it is a while ago, since this was discussed. So let's review
>>> this topic again.
>>> What are your thoughts?
>> Hen (who is mainly behind lang) and Gary already mentioned, they don't
>> want to replicate Joda code into [lang]. I don't see any reasons why
>> we should do that now. Instead I would prefer to mark the time package
>> as deprecated and point users to joda. time does rely on jdk classes
>> and as I have found out by own experience, it is dangerous to work
>> with them.
> Long-term vision wise; my expectation is to drop our time package like
> a lead balloon as soon as Joda enters the JDK :)

Just to clarify: Joda is not entering the JDK. JSR-310 has been proposed 
and might make it into the JDK, but JSR-310 is not Joda.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message