commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <>
Subject Re: [lang] What about Duration class? (org.apache.commons.lang.time)
Date Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:35:41 GMT
On Jan 26, 2012, at 10:47, Adrian Crum
<> wrote:

> 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
>>>>> 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.

Is this jsr dead? What's the next step?


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

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

View raw message