On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2009-11-23 14.15, Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Rickard Öberg<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> So, then we would get a hard dependency on Joda Time, right? What is the >>> usecase that is driving this, and are there any specific cases in the >>> Qi4j >>> codebase where java.util.Date is causing problems? >> >> The initial usecase for me is "Domain model won't use the troubled >> mutable java.util.Date", but serialization of it to/from Json makes >> the 'better solution' a bad choice as well. >> >> The usage in Core is limited to two main cases; JSon serialization and >> Configuration initialization from properties files. > > Alright, fair enough. How big is the Joda time jar?
500+kB Quite large, but my guess is that a big chunk of business applications would benefit from it, considering it has proper time functionality, properly immutable objects and so on. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
