AIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [lang] DateUtils parseCVS with time format
>
>
> > Quoting Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > T
> From: "Steven Caswell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "'Jakarta Commons Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:11 AM
> > Subject: RE: [lang] DateUtils parseCVS with time format
> >
> >
> > A
s Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:11 AM
> Subject: RE: [lang] DateUtils parseCVS with time format
>
>
> And I should have said that I don't know the CVS behavior either.
>
> So I guess the next question is how closely sho
ourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 6:58 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [lang] DateUtils parseCVS with time format
>
>
> I don't know the CVS answer, but todays date makes more sense
> here. Stephen
>
> ---
I don't know the CVS answer, but todays date makes more sense here.
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Serge Knystautas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 12:46 AM
Subject: Re
Steven Caswell wrote:
One of the supported formats for input to parseCVS is h:mm z. The method
parses the time correctly, but the date is left as the default of January 1,
1970. Does this make sense, or does it make sense to have it fill in the
current date? Since the API is silent on the expected
One of the supported formats for input to parseCVS is h:mm z. The method
parses the time correctly, but the date is left as the default of January 1,
1970. Does this make sense, or does it make sense to have it fill in the
current date? Since the API is silent on the expected behavior, it is
diffic
