I'm planning to get rid of piggybank datetime stuff and make jodatime a core
dependency to these builtin functions.  No REGISTER required.

Russ

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Corbin Hoenes <[email protected]> wrote:

> So is your plan to package the jodatime dependency as part of piggybank or
> will it require 2 REGISTER jar commands one for piggybank and one for joda?
>
> On Jul 2, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Russell Jurney wrote:
>
> > I was planning to rely completely on Jodatime there, and I believe its
> > default behavior is to use the local timezone of the machine it is on.
>  ISO
> > time encodes the time zone, and jodatime does the conversions back and
> > forth, taking it into account.
> >
> > Should this be a pig config field?  You can specify a timezone in
> jodatime,
> > so that should work out ok, it would limit hadoop node shenanigans.
> >
> > Russ
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:05 PM, hc busy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I wonder if we can pull timezone support into the system... So some day
> I
> >> can say things like
> >>
> >>
> >> 'jiffies between 11am EST and  13:11 IST'
> >>
> >> and get back the correct answer in PigLatin.
> >>
> >> also, how does ISO time know the current time zone?
> >>
> >> I've seen people run into this situation where the compute node and name
> >> node are in different time zones (by accident of course, they're
> physically
> >> in the same room), and it produces some problems that are difficult to
> >> track
> >> down.
> >>
> >> so, at least your UnixToISO will need to have some kind of convention
> for
> >> knowing what timezone to send it into, right? What's the plan there?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Russell Jurney <
> [email protected]
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I though I would ping pig-user about this to get comments.  I put a
> >>> proposal
> >>> for builtin date functions I can have ready for Pig 0.8 at
> >>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-1430
> >>>
> >>> There are so many classes to add a type, given my time constraints I
> >> don't
> >>> see the benefit of a full datetime type over this proposal right now.
> >>> These
> >>> functions should be backwards compatible with a full-blown datetime
> type.
> >>>
> >>> Russ
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to