FAQ
Any thoughts on supporting joda time? Would this be better if placed a
third party jar to avoid adding a new dependency? Or is it something
you're interested in adding to the core?

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-1626

Thanks,
John

Search Discussions

  • Aristedes Maniatis at Dec 16, 2012 at 12:56 am

    On 16/12/12 10:06am, John Huss wrote:
    Any thoughts on supporting joda time? Would this be better if placed a
    third party jar to avoid adding a new dependency? Or is it something
    you're interested in adding to the core?

    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-1626

    I definitely don't think that it should go into the core, especially since the successor to Joda is scheduled to land in Java 8 (I hope!).

    https://github.com/ThreeTen/threeten

    Ari




    --
    -------------------------->
    Aristedes Maniatis
    GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
  • Andrus Adamchik at Dec 17, 2012 at 7:01 am
    We already have a bunch of deps like JGroups that are excluded via the ugly cayenne-server/cayenne-client hack. Need a cleaner solution to include integrations. I am wondering if we should play with "optional" Maven dependency scope for such things.

    Otherwise I am open to including Joda (and then later its JDK analog).

    Andrus

    On Dec 16, 2012, at 3:55 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
    On 16/12/12 10:06am, John Huss wrote:
    Any thoughts on supporting joda time? Would this be better if placed a
    third party jar to avoid adding a new dependency? Or is it something
    you're interested in adding to the core?

    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-1626

    I definitely don't think that it should go into the core, especially since the successor to Joda is scheduled to land in Java 8 (I hope!).

    https://github.com/ThreeTen/threeten

    Ari




    --
    -------------------------->
    Aristedes Maniatis
    GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
  • Aristedes Maniatis at Dec 17, 2012 at 7:17 am
    I just found a note to say that JSR-310 is due to land in Java 8 in January. I hope they make it!

    I am pretty sure there is a package for older Java users as well.

    Ari

    On 17/12/12 6:00pm, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
    We already have a bunch of deps like JGroups that are excluded via the ugly cayenne-server/cayenne-client hack. Need a cleaner solution to include integrations. I am wondering if we should play with "optional" Maven dependency scope for such things.

    Otherwise I am open to including Joda (and then later its JDK analog).

    Andrus

    On Dec 16, 2012, at 3:55 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
    On 16/12/12 10:06am, John Huss wrote:
    Any thoughts on supporting joda time? Would this be better if placed a
    third party jar to avoid adding a new dependency? Or is it something
    you're interested in adding to the core?

    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-1626

    I definitely don't think that it should go into the core, especially since the successor to Joda is scheduled to land in Java 8 (I hope!).

    https://github.com/ThreeTen/threeten

    Ari




    --
    -------------------------->
    Aristedes Maniatis
    GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
    --
    -------------------------->
    Aristedes Maniatis
    GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
  • John Huss at Dec 18, 2012 at 11:08 pm
    Unfortunately, I wouldn't be any help with the maven stuff. I would tend
    to agree with Ari on this and would say it is sufficient to provide support
    in a separate project. But whether or not 310 actually gets done and is
    backported to JDK 6 there will still existing joda users to support. I
    don't expect the 310 api to be significantly better or different than joda,
    so there's not a lot of motivation to convert to it.

    On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:

    We already have a bunch of deps like JGroups that are excluded via the
    ugly cayenne-server/cayenne-client hack. Need a cleaner solution to include
    integrations. I am wondering if we should play with "optional" Maven
    dependency scope for such things.

    Otherwise I am open to including Joda (and then later its JDK analog).

    Andrus

    On Dec 16, 2012, at 3:55 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
    On 16/12/12 10:06am, John Huss wrote:
    Any thoughts on supporting joda time? Would this be better if placed a
    third party jar to avoid adding a new dependency? Or is it something
    you're interested in adding to the core?

    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-1626

    I definitely don't think that it should go into the core, especially
    since the successor to Joda is scheduled to land in Java 8 (I hope!).
    https://github.com/ThreeTen/threeten

    Ari




    --
    -------------------------->
    Aristedes Maniatis
    GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupdev @
categoriescayenne
postedDec 15, '12 at 11:06p
activeDec 18, '12 at 11:08p
posts5
users3
websitecayenne.apache.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase