No, on second thought, you are right -- the T should only belong when doing BASIC_DATE_TIME. For just BASIC_TIME, the T is better out.
On Fri, May 1, 2026 at 6:57 PM David Alayachew <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh thanks. I don't think I can comment on JBS entries, can I? > > In any case, I think the T before time is an excellent suggestion. Would > that then mean that just BASIC_TIME would output something like T235959 for > one second before midnight? I am fine with that, just want to double check. > > On Fri, May 1, 2026 at 6:38 PM Naoto Sato <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Actually, @rriggs made a comment in the JBS issue. >> >> >> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8382539?focusedId=14873580&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-14873580 >> >> Naoto >> >> On 5/1/26 2:08 PM, David Alayachew wrote: >> > Ok @Naoto Sato <mailto:[email protected]>, looks like no one else >> > has responded against this. Am I good to attempt a shot at the JBS >> entry? >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 4:19 PM David Alayachew >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > Sounds good. Barring further discussion, I'll jump on this start of >> May. >> > >> > Thank you again! >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 3:59 PM Naoto Sato <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > 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]> >> > > <mailto:[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> <https:// >> > > bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8382539 < >> http://bugs.openjdk.org/ >> > browse/JDK-8382539>> >> > > >> > > Naoto >> > > >> > > On 4/19/26 3:45 PM, David Alayachew wrote: >> > > > Hello @core-libs-dev <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:core- <mailto:core-> >> > > [email protected] <mailto:[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 >> > > >> > >> >>
