I made my decision. It's not open for any more debate (that's what happens when there's a BDFL around... he can make a final decision). I listened to your position as you have articulated it in this thread. I seriously and deeply considered your position and those of others. But I made a decision and the discussion is over.
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Well if users would, for at least one release, explicitly say which time > library they want to use, this kind of bug would not occur. > It's not 'jt' per se; rather, as Derek said, it's having names that > indicate the implementation detail rather than simply what it does. It makes > code less readable. > We required everyone to update their imports for Box and actors. I think > your argument is that requiring such changes should only be done when there > is a big enough gain. So the disagreement seems to be whether allowing > people to use JodaTime code that's as readable as java.util time is > important enough. Or whether names like 'jtNow' are less readable. > Another point. If JDK 7 time is not 100% compatible with JodaTime, if we > take TimeHelpers out of Helpers, having all 3 play together nicely is > straightforward. On the other hand, if we try to squeeze in new names, we > will have to add even more of them. > And say some company wants to add their own time API. > > > ------------------------------------- > David Pollak<feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen <je...@ingolfs.dk > >wrote: > > > > > Derek Chen-Becker <dchenbec...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > It's entirely subjective, but I just strongly dislike the idea of > > > using method names like jtNow, etc. > > > > I couldn't agree more....code just doesn't read nice anymore. > > > > I'm cool with other names, but, and this is a huge *BUT*... > > having two methods that have different return signatures is a huge source > of > bugs. We saw this when we changed some of the S methods to return > Box[String] rather than String. There were hundreds of subtle errors. > > I'm happy to deprecate now and have goodNow (returns JodaTime) and evilNow > (returns java.util.Date), but I am 100% against changing a return > signature. > > I am sorry that my position is making folks unhappy, especially Derek who > works hard and does a great job. > > Thanks, > > David > > > > > > /Jeppe > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
