java.util.Date isnt thread safe so its probably best we move away from that anyways...
Cheers, Tim On 14 Sep 2009, at 17:23, Derek Chen-Becker wrote: > Anyone else care to comment? Joda Time and Scala Time are both > licensed Apache, so I don't think there would be any issues there, > but this would be a significant change. Would anyone here strongly > prefer to stay with java.util.Date? > > Derek > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Charles F. Munat <c...@munat.com> > wrote: > > +1 for joda or scala time if it's not too disruptive > > Chas. > > Indrajit Raychaudhuri wrote: > >>> Also, the LiftRules.parseDate function currently does DateTime > >>> parsing, so I would have to make a breaking change to rename it to > >>> parseDateTime and add new parseDate and parseTime (and associated > >>> format methods). Thoughts? > >> I think this is the right solution. Don't know how much will break > >> because of this though. But hey, if we're breaking things anyway, > why > >> not put in Joda time (or maybe > >> scala-timehttp://github.com/jorgeortiz85/scala-time/tree > /master;-) > > > > Although not belonging to breaking changers camp, breaking changes > are > > great when it's for a cause. IMHO, scala time is a darn good cause > and > > worth the break! > > > > Cheers, Indrajit > > > >> /Jeppe > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
