|| 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).
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
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A