On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Tatu Saloranta <[email protected]> wrote:
> First of all, thank you for following up on this, especially considering > that we are (like you correctly observed) about to get 2.8.0 finalized, and > this would be good time to resolve issues that are difficult to tackle in > patches. > ... except Sonatypes Nexus managed to mess up the release process (its GUI claimed to only push release of jackson-annotations; did push everything staged), so 2.8.0 of Joda is actually released. I just hate doing Maven releases having to use tool with so little visibility to what is going on, and with bad misleading. But I digress. Nonetheless if we can achieve consensus I will make changes to 2.8.1 if need be. -+ Tatu +- > > I was hoping others with more date/time knowledge would chime in... > but as is, everyone seems to be busy. > But here's my take: > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Oumar Aziz Ouattara <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Anyone here ? >> I have seen quite some development on GITHUB on jackson-joda-time. So I >> would like that this matter be discussed before the new major release, in >> possible. >> >> Cordialement >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> Oumar Aziz OUATTARA >> Strator SAS >> Tel: 01 49 80 77 27 >> Mob: 06 07 62 15 81 >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> >> 2016-05-03 11:51 GMT+02:00 Oumar Aziz Ouattara <[email protected]>: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I noticed a typo in the Use Case 4 (other that the *convert *word >>> inserted in all cases). >>> >>> >>> >>>> Given my Local TZ being GMT+5 >>>> And default settings of jackson >>>> And the following *Local*DateTime 2000-01-01 06:00:00 >>>> When I serialize into a Json string >>>> Then Should I get ? >>>> >>>> 1. (1) {"jodaDateTime":"2000-01-01T06:00:00.000"} >>>> 2. (2) {"jodaDateTime":"2000-01-01T01:00:00.000Z"} >>>> 3. (3) {"jodaDateTime":"2000-01-01T06:00:00.000+05:00"} >>>> >>>> >>> > I think it should NOT be (3), as LocalDateTime should not, as per > definition, contain timezone or offset. > > I suspect that (1) would be ideal. However, it seems (based on issue > reports I have gotten) that for some reason date parsers appear to want to > get/generate a placeholder indicator of `Z` (or even +0000, which seems > incorrect). If so, there is the challenge of reading value back > appropriately. > > Still, it seems to me that (1) would be the optimal choice here. > > What do you think? > > -+ Tatu +- > > >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "jackson-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jackson-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
