Brian has made the key points. I'd add that choosing a definition of
long milliseconds that exactly matched the JDK was important in
getting Joda-Time widely adopted.

That the JDK chooses to ignore leap seconds (as UNIX did) is one that
annoys many time "experts" but doesn't impact most users - people
don't tend to care much about leap seconds. JSR-310 will allow people
to care if they want to. It also properly defines the meaning of
1970-01-01 when leap-second UTC doesn't start until 1972.

Stephen


On 12 July 2010 15:24, Brian S O'Neill <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. The Java and Joda-time epoch are the same -- Unix time with
> millisecond precision.
>
> 2. Lack of leap seconds simply means that if you wanted to know the
> number of seconds elapsed between now and some datetime in the past, it
> would be off a little bit. Joda-time assumes that the length of a day
> (ignoring timezones) is always 86400 seconds.
>
> 3. Parsing a datetime string would be ambiguous only if the leap second
> was included in it. Ordinarily, the seconds field is only 0..59, but a
> leap second (or two) allows 0..61.
>
> 4. Publishing the epoch makes it much easier to convert to different
> formats and perform calculations. Otherwise, the only approach would be
> to extract calendar type, time zone, era, year, month, day, hour,
> minute, second, millis always. Converting between calendar systems is an
> amazing challenge if these are the only exposed values.
>
> You should probably read the jsr 310 threads. All of these questions
> come up again and again.
>
> https://jsr-310.dev.java.net/servlets/SummarizeList?listName=dev
>
>
> On 2010-07-12 03:11 AM, Winston Gutkowski wrote:
>> Dear Joda experts,
>>
>>
>> I've been contributing to a long, but ultimately rather fruitless, thread on 
>> the
>> Sun Java forums about the java.util.Date class, and was hoping that one of 
>> your
>> experts might be able to answer a few questions for me:
>>
>> 1. The published epoch for the Date class is given as 1/1/1970 00:00:00 GMT 
>> (I
>> notice Joda's DateTime epoch specifies Zulu time, which I assume amounts to 
>> the
>> same thing). When exactly is this in terms of UTC, which was not standardized
>> until 1972? Or do they both in fact use "1/1/1970 00:00:00 UTC proleptic", as
>> Unix time does?
>>
>> 2. The Joda FAQ states that Joda time does not support leap seconds. Does 
>> this
>> mean that Joda's 'ticker' (and therefore presumably Java's) adjusts for this 
>> in
>> some way, like Unix's; or simply that  leap seconds are ignored for the 
>> purposes
>> of displaying human-readable timestamps?
>>
>>
>> 3. If the answer to Q2 is "the latter", what are the rules for parsing a date
>> string that might be ambiguous?
>>
>> 4. What was Joda's rationale for publishing its DateTime epoch? I've been
>> arguing that there was no good reason for Java's Date class to do so, since 
>> it
>>
>> (a) Anchors the date from an instant that people believe they "understand".
>> (b) Encourages buggy conversion methods written in the mistaken belief that 
>> it's
>> "simple".
>> (c) Prevents the epoch from being changed in the event of a new time 
>> standard,
>> or simply to make internal calculations more efficient.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any answers.
>>
>> Winston Gutkowski
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
> What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
> Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
> _______________________________________________
> Joda-interest mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/joda-interest
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Joda-interest mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/joda-interest

Reply via email to