I was thinking more that if you're duplicating efforts, why not use those efforts to help Jorge move ScalaTime forward simultaneously?
I haven't found any problems with ScalaTime being pre-1.0. It just means that not all Joda functionality is available in ScalaTime, and sometimes you need to use JodaTime directly. It's not like it crashes. Jorge has done a superb job. I am using ScalaTime with Lift on production sites. (And persisting it in Hibernate as well, using a joda-hibernate library that isn't quite 1.0 either, IIRC.) Food for thought, anyway. Chas. Timothy Perrett wrote: > I thought we had this discussion in some other thread and because > scala-time wasn't 1.0 there was a general reluctancy to use it? We > could cherry pick some of the code however; im sure Jorge wouldn't > mind :-) > > Cheers, Tim > > On 16 Oct 2009, at 11:30, Charles F. Munat wrote: > >> You have looked at Scala Time, right? I think some of this may already >> be implemented there, and it would probably be better to extend that >> rather than reinvent it. But maybe I'm thinking about something else? >> >> http://github.com/jorgeortiz85/scala-time >> >> Chas. >> >> Derek Chen-Becker wrote: >>> Oh, I plan on incorporating the DSL. My thought was that JodaHelpers >>> would define most of the same methods as TimeHelpers, just >>> operating on >>> DateTime instead of Date and Calendar. Then you could do >>> >>> import ...Helpers._ >>> import ...JodaHelpers._ >>> >>> and the latter import would mask the TimeHelpers methods. Or you >>> could >>> just import JodaHelpers by itself. Actually, Joda Time has some very >>> nice facilities for doing intervals that would simplify the DSLs a >>> lot >>> and possibly make it richer. >>> >>> Derek >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:19 PM, David Pollak >>> <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I personally like the DSLs that TimeHelpers provides. I'd hate to >>> see it deprecated or go away without the ability to write 30 >>> seconds >>> later using some other DSL. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Derek Chen-Becker >>> <dchenbec...@gmail.com <mailto:dchenbec...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Well, actually, maybe I'll just make a JodaHelpers with the >>> applicable methods on it and we can just deprecate the entire >>> TimeHelpers object. If anyone else has a better idea I'm all >>> ears. >>> >>> Derek >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Derek Chen-Becker >>> <dchenbec...@gmail.com <mailto:dchenbec...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> OK, will do. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:18 PM, David Pollak >>> <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I'd prefer not the break the apis without deprecating >>> them first >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Derek Chen-Becker >>> <dchenbec...@gmail.com <mailto:dchenbec...@gmail.com>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Just asking, since I'm looking at bolting a lot of >>> java.util.Date methods onto the innards of >>> TimeHelpers so that the specs pass. >>> >>> Derek >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net >>> Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 >>> Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp >>> Surf the harmonics >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net >>> Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 >>> Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp >>> Surf the harmonics >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
