Hi all,
I agree that RI's Timestamp#compareTo() is buggy. The #toString()
method seems to be working ok but it would be nice if it can output
something like BC and AD since now the output is a bit confusing. I am
not persuading you to do so, just reflecting upon the subject.
Thanks,
2006/10/27, Leo Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Ya, I also recognized it. Harmony's java.util.Date is not the same as that
of java.sql.Timestamp, just following RI.
I think if the toString result is reliable, the compareTo is false. I will
let the compareTo to follow toString since the latter gives detailed
information of the TimeStamp.
On 10/27/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Leo,
>
> I think the problem is caused by negative value. java.util.Date and
> java.sql.Timestamp handles differently on negative value. Following code
> shows the difference:
>
> public static void main(String[] args) {
> Long l1 = Long.MIN_VALUE;
> Long l2 = Long.MIN_VALUE -1;
>
> Timestamp timestamp1 = new Timestamp(l1);
> Timestamp timestamp2 = new Timestamp(l2);
> Date date1 = new Date(l1);
> Date date2 = new Date(l2);
> System.out.println(timestamp1);
> System.out.println(timestamp2);
> System.out.println(date1);
> System.out.println(date2);
> }
> The output of RI is:
> 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192
> 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.807
> Mon Dec 03 00:47:04 CST 292269055
> Sun Aug 17 15:12:55 CST 292278994
>
> Spec doesn't say how to handle negative value. (do i miss something here?)
>
> How would you like to fix this problem?
>
>
> On 10/27/06, Leo Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, all:
> > When fixing jira 1703, I found that at an extreme situation,
> > TimeStamp.compareTo behaves differently from its semantic: the time it
> > represents:
> > Here is the example:
> >
> > public static void main(String[] args) {
> > Long l1 = Long.MIN_VALUE;
> > Long l2 = Long.MIN_VALUE -1;
> >
> > Timestamp timestamp1 = new Timestamp(l1);
> > Timestamp timestamp2 = new Timestamp(l2);
> > System.out.println(timestamp1);
> > System.out.println(timestamp2);
> > System.out.println(timestamp1.compareTo(timestamp2));
> > }
> >
> > We get:
> > 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.192
> > 292278994-08-17 15:12:55.807
> > 1
> >
> > From the times the timestamps represent, timestamp1 than timestamp2,
> > which indicate that timestamp1.compareTo(timestamp2) should be -1, while
> > the
> > actual result is 1, which indicate the reversed time sequence.
> >
> > Furthermore, as the spec says java.sql.Timestamp wraps the
> > java.util.Date:"A thin wrapper around java.util.Date that allows the
> JDBC
> > API to identify this as an SQL TIMESTAMP value. It adds the ability to
> > hold
> > the SQL TIMESTAMP nanos value and provides formatting and parsing
> > operations
> > to support the JDBC escape syntax for timestamp values".
> > I apply the same long value to java.util.Date:
> > Long l1 = Long.MIN_VALUE;
> > Long l2 = Long.MIN_VALUE -1;
> >
> > Date date1 = new Date(l1);
> > Date date2 = new Date(l2);
> > System.out.println(date1.compareTo(date2));
> > I got -1, which indicate that date1 is earlier than date2 as we
> expected.
> > The samething happens on java.sql.Date.
> >
> > If no one objects, I will regard it as RI's bug and go on with my
> patch.
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
