I may have assumed you were using the strict definition of the wrapper/adapter pattern which seemed like overkill :-)
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Marvin S. Addison <marvin.addi...@gmail.com > wrote: > Adding a wrapper doesn't help us too much I don't think (its not like we'd >> swap time implementations for something this simple, would we?) >> > > I weigh heavily the inclusion of JSR-310 in the JSE in the near future. > Yet it's clearly still in flux, so it may be wise to use Joda-Time now. I > can imagine at some point in the not-too-distant future that using the JSE > classes will become standard practice, so having a migration strategy makes > sense to me. > > Our use case is indeed simple, and I was thinking the wrapper API would be > simple enough to justify itself in terms of both convenience and time > provider abstraction. Convenience use cases might include support for > natural language time periods like "3 hours," which is not supported by > either JSR-310 or Joda-Time afaict. > > > We should probably just look at whether JodaTime is simple enough to >> configure in Spring (and gives us what we need). >> > > I'm fairly certain that's the case. > > > > If not, we should just write a simple API to encapsulate the minimal set > we need. > > This is more or less what I was suggesting, but from a different > perspective. > > > M > > -- > You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: > scott.battag...@gmail.com > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see > http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/**display/JSG/cas-dev<http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev> > -- You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: arch...@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev
