No problem. But let’s leave it for a bit in case someone else wants to
jump into the discussion
Naoto
On 4/20/26 12:30 PM, David Alayachew wrote:
Wow, ty vm!
I see that it is assigned to you -- is that something I could volunteer
to make a PR for? The implementation appears to be very straightforward.
Ty again for the help and speedy response.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 12:46 PM Naoto Sato <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi David,
Sounds reasonable to me. Filed an RFE:
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8382539 <https://
bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8382539>
Naoto
On 4/19/26 3:45 PM, David Alayachew wrote:
> Hello @core-libs-dev <[email protected] <mailto:core-
[email protected]>>,
>
> The class j.t.f.DateTimeFormatter has BASIC_ISO_DATE, but not
> BASIC_ISO_DATE_TIME. That would be very useful for saving
filenames, and
> it's weird that there are several time versions of the date
versions in the
> DateTimeFormatter fields section.
>
> Would this make sense to add as a new formatter field on
DateTimeFormatter?
>
> Thank you for your time and consideration.
> David Alayachew
