Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-commons-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 8FA799D76 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:47:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 2340 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jan 2012 18:47:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 2201 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jan 2012 18:47:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 2192 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jan 2012 18:47:38 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:47:38 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [173.236.76.174] (HELO serv01.siteground309.com) (173.236.76.174) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:47:31 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandglass-software.com; s=dkim; h=Message-ID:Date:From: MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=70O7LVBm7gJ7PenCwmwFFvwwXhDAXd9DaM 9UcMMOCcQ=; b=QYGUH2N0mI13h66iLajS3T4URpLtP1RWnVvYcwf8hMpM/qN7kS 3uOjHmp4fGZ27ARR9yMntmbxYYzLhYmWtLo28eMaHhPiudm0R/Tu8E+OatmPJgid SszwwkqmlMFUBLFUxDd/Ft1xgS6Epn4yR4e15Pyixd0H3BFkk/qMsqbWc= Received: from [86.186.147.142] (port=1267 helo=[192.168.1.64]) by serv01.siteground309.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RqULm-0002GZ-Iw for dev@commons.apache.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:47:10 -0600 Message-ID: <4F219FBC.1060308@sandglass-software.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:47:24 +0000 From: Adrian Crum Organization: Sandglass Software User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [lang] What about Duration class? (org.apache.commons.lang.time) References: <4F20633E.3010504@systemoutprintln.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - serv01.siteground309.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - commons.apache.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - sandglass-software.com X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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. >>>> >>>> (http://markmail.org/thread/733yqv5zwzsngj3j) >>>> 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. http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=310 -Adrian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org