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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> 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 > > > >
