Ya, I also recognized it. Harmony's java.util.Date is not the same as that
of java.sql.Timestamp, just following RI.
I think if the toString result is reliable, the compareTo is false. I will
let the compareTo to follow toString since the latter gives detailed
information of the TimeStamp.
On 10/27/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Leo,
I think the problem is caused by negative value. java.util.Date and
java.sql.Timestamp handles differently on negative value. Following code
shows the difference:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Long l1 = Long.MIN_VALUE;
Long l2 = Long.MIN_VALUE -1;
Timestamp timestamp1 = new Timestamp(l1);
Timestamp timestamp2 = new Timestamp(l2);
Date date1 = new Date(l1);
Date date2 = new Date(l2);
System.out.println(timestamp1);
System.out.println(timestamp2);
System.out.println(date1);
System.out.println(date2);
}
The output of RI is:
292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192
292278994-08-17 15:12:55.807
Mon Dec 03 00:47:04 CST 292269055
Sun Aug 17 15:12:55 CST 292278994
Spec doesn't say how to handle negative value. (do i miss something here?)
How would you like to fix this problem?
On 10/27/06, Leo Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi, all:
> When fixing jira 1703, I found that at an extreme situation,
> TimeStamp.compareTo behaves differently from its semantic: the time it
> represents:
> Here is the example:
>
> public static void main(String[] args) {
> Long l1 = Long.MIN_VALUE;
> Long l2 = Long.MIN_VALUE -1;
>
> Timestamp timestamp1 = new Timestamp(l1);
> Timestamp timestamp2 = new Timestamp(l2);
> System.out.println(timestamp1);
> System.out.println(timestamp2);
> System.out.println(timestamp1.compareTo(timestamp2));
> }
>
> We get:
> 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192
> 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.807
> 1
>
> From the times the timestamps represent, timestamp1 than timestamp2,
> which indicate that timestamp1.compareTo(timestamp2) should be -1, while
> the
> actual result is 1, which indicate the reversed time sequence.
>
> Furthermore, as the spec says java.sql.Timestamp wraps the
> java.util.Date:"A thin wrapper around java.util.Date that allows the
JDBC
> API to identify this as an SQL TIMESTAMP value. It adds the ability to
> hold
> the SQL TIMESTAMP nanos value and provides formatting and parsing
> operations
> to support the JDBC escape syntax for timestamp values".
> I apply the same long value to java.util.Date:
> Long l1 = Long.MIN_VALUE;
> Long l2 = Long.MIN_VALUE -1;
>
> Date date1 = new Date(l1);
> Date date2 = new Date(l2);
> System.out.println(date1.compareTo(date2));
> I got -1, which indicate that date1 is earlier than date2 as we
expected.
> The samething happens on java.sql.Date.
>
> If no one objects, I will regard it as RI's bug and go on with my
patch.
> --
> Leo Li
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>
--
Best regards,
Andrew Zhang
--
Leo Li
China Software Development Lab, IBM
