Re: [classlib][sql] Another confusing behavior: java.sql.Timestamp

2006-09-07 Thread Richard Liang 

Hello,

I have raised Harmony-1400[1] for this issue. Thanks a lot.

[1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1400

Best regards,
Richard.

On 8/30/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
 1) What should it do?

When calculating nanos value, underflow may occur if the given time is
near Long.MIN_VALUE. In fact, I'm also not sure what it should do. Just
notice that RI handles the underflow situation in a special/confusing
way, while Harmony does not have any handling.


 2) if it's just a single value, why not fix it and never have to deal
 w/ it again?  Is it an easy fix?
Yes, the fix is quite easy. Do you mean we shall follow RI?

Thanks a lot.

Richard.

 geir



 Anton Luht wrote:
 Hello,

 I don't think we should bother about single value which is very
 unlikely to happpen in real data.

 On 8/29/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hello All,

 RI's  java.sql.Timestamp(long time)  behaves confusing when the
 parameter time is in  Long.MIN_VALUE. Shall we follow RI?

 Output of the following sample is:
 time: -9223372036854775808
 time: 9223372036854775192
 timestamp: 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192
 timestamp: 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192


 =
 import java.sql.Timestamp;

 public class TimeStampTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
long time = Long.MIN_VALUE;
long time2 = 9223372036854775192l;
Timestamp timestamp = new Timestamp(time);
Timestamp timestamp2 = new Timestamp(time2);

System.out.println(time:  + time);
System.out.println(time:  + time2);

System.out.println(timestamp:  + timestamp);
System.out.println(timestamp:  + timestamp2);
}
 }


 --
 Richard Liang
 China Software Development Lab, IBM



 -
 Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





 -
 Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM



-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM

-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[classlib][sql] Another confusing behavior: java.sql.Timestamp

2006-08-29 Thread Richard Liang 

Hello All,

RI's  java.sql.Timestamp(long time)  behaves confusing when the 
parameter time is in  Long.MIN_VALUE. Shall we follow RI?


Output of the following sample is:
time: -9223372036854775808
time: 9223372036854775192
timestamp: 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192
timestamp: 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192


=
import java.sql.Timestamp;

public class TimeStampTest {
   public static void main(String[] args) {
   long time = Long.MIN_VALUE;
   long time2 = 9223372036854775192l;
   Timestamp timestamp = new Timestamp(time);
   Timestamp timestamp2 = new Timestamp(time2);
  
   System.out.println(time:  + time);

   System.out.println(time:  + time2);
  
   System.out.println(timestamp:  + timestamp);

   System.out.println(timestamp:  + timestamp2);
   }
}


--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM 




-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [classlib][sql] Another confusing behavior: java.sql.Timestamp

2006-08-29 Thread Anton Luht 

Hello,

I don't think we should bother about single value which is very
unlikely to happpen in real data.

On 8/29/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hello All,

RI's  java.sql.Timestamp(long time)  behaves confusing when the
parameter time is in  Long.MIN_VALUE. Shall we follow RI?

Output of the following sample is:
time: -9223372036854775808
time: 9223372036854775192
timestamp: 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192
timestamp: 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192


=
import java.sql.Timestamp;

public class TimeStampTest {
   public static void main(String[] args) {
   long time = Long.MIN_VALUE;
   long time2 = 9223372036854775192l;
   Timestamp timestamp = new Timestamp(time);
   Timestamp timestamp2 = new Timestamp(time2);

   System.out.println(time:  + time);
   System.out.println(time:  + time2);

   System.out.println(timestamp:  + timestamp);
   System.out.println(timestamp:  + timestamp2);
   }
}


--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM



-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





--
Regards,
Anton Luht,
Intel Middleware Products Division

-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [classlib][sql] Another confusing behavior: java.sql.Timestamp

2006-08-29 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr. 

1) What should it do?

2) if it's just a single value, why not fix it and never have to deal w/ 
it again?  Is it an easy fix?


geir



Anton Luht wrote:

Hello,

I don't think we should bother about single value which is very
unlikely to happpen in real data.

On 8/29/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hello All,

RI's  java.sql.Timestamp(long time)  behaves confusing when the
parameter time is in  Long.MIN_VALUE. Shall we follow RI?

Output of the following sample is:
time: -9223372036854775808
time: 9223372036854775192
timestamp: 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192
timestamp: 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192


=
import java.sql.Timestamp;

public class TimeStampTest {
   public static void main(String[] args) {
   long time = Long.MIN_VALUE;
   long time2 = 9223372036854775192l;
   Timestamp timestamp = new Timestamp(time);
   Timestamp timestamp2 = new Timestamp(time2);

   System.out.println(time:  + time);
   System.out.println(time:  + time2);

   System.out.println(timestamp:  + timestamp);
   System.out.println(timestamp:  + timestamp2);
   }
}


--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM



-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]







-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [classlib][sql] Another confusing behavior: java.sql.Timestamp

2006-08-29 Thread Richard Liang 



Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

1) What should it do?


When calculating nanos value, underflow may occur if the given time is 
near Long.MIN_VALUE. In fact, I'm also not sure what it should do. Just 
notice that RI handles the underflow situation in a special/confusing 
way, while Harmony does not have any handling.




2) if it's just a single value, why not fix it and never have to deal 
w/ it again?  Is it an easy fix?

Yes, the fix is quite easy. Do you mean we shall follow RI?

Thanks a lot.

Richard.


geir



Anton Luht wrote:

Hello,

I don't think we should bother about single value which is very
unlikely to happpen in real data.

On 8/29/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hello All,

RI's  java.sql.Timestamp(long time)  behaves confusing when the
parameter time is in  Long.MIN_VALUE. Shall we follow RI?

Output of the following sample is:
time: -9223372036854775808
time: 9223372036854775192
timestamp: 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192
timestamp: 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192


=
import java.sql.Timestamp;

public class TimeStampTest {
   public static void main(String[] args) {
   long time = Long.MIN_VALUE;
   long time2 = 9223372036854775192l;
   Timestamp timestamp = new Timestamp(time);
   Timestamp timestamp2 = new Timestamp(time2);

   System.out.println(time:  + time);
   System.out.println(time:  + time2);

   System.out.println(timestamp:  + timestamp);
   System.out.println(timestamp:  + timestamp2);
   }
}


--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM



-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]







-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM 




-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]