Is there an equivalent library for the JVM? - Dan
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Dan Burkert <[email protected]> wrote: > I think for a long time we resisted vendoring boost, and so avoiding the > dynamically linked parts of boost was advantageous to avoid > incompatibilities in system boost versions. I recall we are vendoring > boost now, so that should be less of a concern, I would think. > > - Dan > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hey folks, >> >> I'm starting to look at implementing a 96-bit timestamp type that would be >> compatible with Impala and Parquet's TIMESTAMP. Internally, the 96 bits >> are >> a 32-bit day number (Julian day) and a 64-bit time on that day >> (nanoseconds). >> >> This maps nicely to the boost::date_time::ptime data type for the purposes >> of stringification, etc. Doing manual stringification without using a >> library is a bit messy, since it has to account for leap years, etc, when >> mapping the day number to a year/month/day. >> >> Unfortunately, we currently only use boost in a header-only fashion, and >> it >> appears the necessary functionality is not header-only. I can't quite >> recall why we have the header-only restriction - it seems we should be >> able >> to static-link boost like any other library. Does anyone have a problem >> with making that change? Was there some issue that I'm forgetting about? >> >> -Todd >> -- >> Todd Lipcon >> Software Engineer, Cloudera >> > >
