It sounds like you're pretty set against making separate impl traits and
would prefer just putting things directly on TimeHelper. I'm OK with that,
but I would really like to add a lift-joda module that contains the
JodaHelpers, JodaTimeFormats and JodaTimeHelpers traits as I would like to
use them. I should be able to delegate a good chunk of the methods to
TimeHelpers.jt*, so there shouldn't be any *redundant* code. Is that a
reasonable compromise?

Derek

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Derek Chen-Becker
<dchenbec...@gmail.com>wrote:

> I agree that the goal isn't to remove java.util.Date. For trivial time
> handling it works just fine. What I'm trying to achieve here is a way to
> make Joda Time be the default impl while leaving the user a choice. By using
> separate traits instead of different names on the same trait, we achieve a
> few things:
>
>    1. A consistent API for both java.util and Joda Time in terms of method
>    names. As Naftoli pointed out, people expect naming of functions consistent
>    with what they do and having two different "now"s on the same trait is 
> going
>    to look a little strange to people, I think.
>    2. A clean *optional* usage of Joda Time. If we put code that utilizes
>    Joda Time directly into TimeHelpers then it's not an optional dependency.
>    Making a separate trait means that if someone doesn't use the Joda Time
>    trait then they don't need to have the Joda Time jar in their classpath and
>    they never know that it's not there.
>    3. A relatively simple code change path to move from java.util to Joda
>    Time by simply changing imports.
>
> Your assertion that Date is a simple wrapper for a Long timestamp is pretty
> accurate, but really Joda Time's DateTime is a superset of *Calendar*, not
> Date. Just look at what we had to do with CalendarExtension to get some
> simple date manipulation functions, where those same methods are already
> defined on DateTime. The vast majority of Joda Time's classes are immutable,
> and the mutators return new instances instead of modifying the current
> instance. TimeSpan's current handling of duration addition doesn't cope with
> DST, which I'm sure will show up as a bug in someone's code if it hasn't
> already. Having done a fair amount of java.util.Date handling and then
> moving to Joda Time, I find it hard to call the difference between the two
> APIs "marginal". In any case, I still feel that my proposal makes Joda Time
> available in a nicer way while leaving existing code completely untouched
> (by introducing a JodaHelpers trait that mirrors Helpers).
>
> Derek
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:25 PM, David Pollak <
> feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim 
>> <naftoli...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with this.
>>> My understanding is that the goal is that Lift should use Joda for its
>>> time functions rather than java.util.
>>
>>
>> This is not the goal.  The goal is to make JodeTime available.  There is
>> no reason to remove support for java.util.Date.  None.
>>
>> JodaTime offers some advantages, but there's no reason, none, nada, to
>> *remove* support for java.util.Date.
>>
>> I'm cool with different names (not jtNow, but choose something else).
>>
>> But I view removal of support for java.util.Date as gratuitous.  Sure, if
>> we were to make the clean-slate decision today, I'd opt for primary support
>> of JodaTime and secondary support for java.util.Date.  But we're making a
>> decision based on legacy.  We're not going to cut off java.util.Date just
>> because something marginally better (and I'm not being facetious here... at
>> the bottom, these are just wrappers for number of milliseconds since Jan 1,
>> 1970).
>>
>>
>>> If the Joda methods have different and longer names, then it's existing
>>> side by side with the java.util implementation, not replacing it.
>>> To many people, it is important that methods etc. should be named
>>> properly and aesthetically. It's not pleasant to use names like "jtNow" in
>>> your code when that is the method that gets used normally. Sure, if 'now'
>>> was the usual method and a 'jtNow' method was called in special
>>> circumstances, it's an understandable name. But names that are used in
>>> ordinary circumstances should have straightforward names.
>>> (Names should be concise expressions of what they represent. This aids in
>>> memorization and code readability.)
>>> Also, it will be impossible to deprecate the java.util implementation and
>>> have a clean API instead. If we use separate traits with the same method
>>> names, then we will be able to.
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------
>>> Derek Chen-Becker<dchenbec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:59 PM, David Pollak <
>>> feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> > What I checked in allows you to use JodaTime just as easily (well with
>>> 2
>>> > extra characters in a few method names) as java.util.Date.  How is
>>> anything
>>> > more "default" than that?
>>> >
>>>
>>> My primary concern with this approach is that it makes changing between
>>> the
>>> two implementations something that requires a global search and replace
>>> on
>>> one or more method names, whereas having two different implementation
>>> traits
>>> means that generally I should be able to just change the import and the
>>> code
>>> will work. A secondary (minor) concern is that having method names
>>> reflect
>>> the underlying implementation details goes against my aesthetics.
>>>
>>>
>>> > It's an interesting difference between an OO vs. non-OO.  In the
>>> > implementation I created, there choice of one or the other is made
>>> based on
>>> > singleton methods invoked.  This allows mixing both in the same code
>>> simply
>>> > by invoking now or jtNow.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I would argue that it's not a common case where you would want to use
>>> both
>>> libraries, particularly when Joda's DateTime has an explicit toDate on it
>>> that returns a java.util.Date. There are similar methods to return
>>> Calendar
>>> and TimeZone instances as needed. These are simple methods to use
>>> directly,
>>> or it's easy to create a view that handles this automatically.
>>>
>>> I'm unclear why this is not possible.  We can add a DSL for manipulating
>>> > JodaTime without breaking anything we have.  The TimeSpan class simply
>>> gets
>>> > enhanced to deal with additional stuff and maybe uses JodaTime under
>>> the
>>> > covers.
>>> >
>>>
>>> The underpinning of the current DSL is the TimeSpan class. Joda Time
>>> already
>>> has a time interval class corresponding to TimeSpan called Duration, but
>>> the
>>> more proper class to use is actually Period. Period is premised not on ms
>>> duration but rather on field deltas, which allows it to properly handle
>>> DST.
>>> Modifying the current DSL to work for Duration and Period via TimeSpan is
>>> just going to end up with a lot of redundant code, when a Joda-only DSL
>>> would be cleaner and more in line with how you would want to use Joda
>>> Time.
>>>
>>>
>>> > They have that now with the implementation I did on your branch.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Like I said before, I have a strong preference for the OO approach and
>>> being
>>> able to change impls by changing the import rather than having to change
>>> methods all over the place. If you really feel strongly that we can't
>>> have a
>>> separate trait in Lift, I can just create a different artifact in my own
>>> repo that tracks Lift and create the JodaHelpers, JodaTimeFormats and
>>> JodaTimeHelpers traits there.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> >>
>>
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to