Matthias Basler wrote:
> Andrea Aime wrote:
> 
>> Now, how do we handle this? The timezone does not seem to go thru from
>> storage to XML encoding (and oh, btw, dbms are timezone aware).
>> I see three ways:
>> * find some classes that do keep the timezone intact. Maybe Joda time
>>    (http://joda-time.sourceforge.net/) can do this.
>> * accept the loss, and allow the xml encoder to be configured with a
>>    target timezone (something we can do by injecting a timezone into
>>    the xml date/time bindings)
>> * just use the default timezone, if someone needs a different one,
>>    he can configure the JVM accordingly using user.timezone
>>    (see 
>> http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-10-2003/jw-1003-time.html?page=4)
>> [...]
>> Comments, suggestions? Speak up please :)
> 
> Introducing a heavy dependency doesn't sound good for a problem as simple as 
> this one. Still, if a timezone is provided and relevant it should not be lost 
> imho.
> 
> So my solution would be to create a simple utility wrapper class that contains
> - a flag that's telling whether Date, time or both are relevant
> - the actual point in time (represented as java.util.Date)
>   (If only time is relevant then use today, it won't matter if
>   hash() is implemented correctly. If only day is relevant, use noon.)
> - a timezone (represented as java.util.TimeZone)
>   (If not specified, set to the JVM's local one.)
> 
> Pro:
> - no additional dependency needed
> - consistent handling of all SQL types
> - can be extended to store more information if necessary
>   (e.g. date/time display format...)
> - can contain conversion methods from/to SQL types,
>   so everything is in one spot.
> 
> Contra:
> - Will probably require lots of changes in source code
> - When getting such class as parameter, it is not obvious
>   if it contains date, time or both.
> - Users possibly wondering why they get an unfamilar wrapper class where they 
> expect a plain java.util.Date etc. But this can be documented.
> 
> Maybe another solution already exists and is not 500kB fat?
> Don't know.
> 
> Just my 2c.

If GeoTools/GeoAPI try to implement some GI ISO
standards then introducing a dirty wrapper around nonelegant
old classes without future, doesn't sound good for me.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Filip Okal
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel

Reply via email to