RE: [Discussion] Date handling inconsistencies - resend

hello jason. yes, this makes sense. stefan >-Original Message- >From: Jason E Bailey [mailto:j...@apache.org] >Sent: Sunday, May 6, 2018 7:21 PM >To: dev@sling.apache.org >Subject: Re: [Discussion] Date handling inconsistencies - resend > >I've been giving it a

Re: [Discussion] Date handling inconsistencies - resend

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Jason E Bailey wrote: > ...I think the appropriate choice is to have it default to ISO-8601 formatting > while providing an option to "enable support for the deprecated > ECMA formatting"... +1 assuming tests cover both options, thanks for

Re: [Discussion] Date handling inconsistencies - resend

ough it would be fine to > have it by default to ISO-8601 in the future for new applications. > > stefan > > >-Original Message- > >From: Jason E Bailey [mailto:j...@apache.org] > >Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 8:37 PM > >To: dev@sling.apache.org > >

RE: [Discussion] Date handling inconsistencies - resend

org >Subject: Re: [Discussion] Date handling inconsistencies - resend > >For the JSON rendering, would a service configuration to enable ISO8601 >date support be sufficient initially? > > >- Jason > >On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, at 12:58 PM, Jason E Bailey wrote: >> I'll

Re: [Discussion] Date handling inconsistencies - resend

I see what you're saying. I will get some unit tests in specifically around formatting, which is where the problems might crop up. - Jason On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, at 4:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi Jason, > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 6:58 PM, Jason E Bailey wrote: > >

Re: [Discussion] Date handling inconsistencies - resend

Hi Jason, On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 6:58 PM, Jason E Bailey wrote: > ...I'll just come out and say that someone, somewhere, will have something > break because of this... Could you write some simple tests that demonstrate those potential breakages? I think that's the most

Re: [Discussion] Date handling inconsistencies - resend

For the JSON rendering, would a service configuration to enable ISO8601 date support be sufficient initially? - Jason On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, at 12:58 PM, Jason E Bailey wrote: > I'll just come out and say that someone, somewhere, will have something > break because of this. Because they wrote

Re: [Discussion] Date handling inconsistencies - resend

I'll just come out and say that someone, somewhere, will have something break because of this. Because they wrote something that is very specific to a particular use case. >From a loading of content perspective, the two changes I made keep the same >instance in time, they just correctly store

Re: [Discussion] Date handling inconsistencies - resend

Hi, On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Jason E Bailey wrote: > ...I cam to the same conclusion about the Content Loader, I'll make the bug > and fix for that either today or > tomorrow. For the second point, I will go ahead and make the bug fix, and do > a pull request so that

Re: [Discussion] Date handling inconsistencies - resend

I cam to the same conclusion about the Content Loader, I'll make the bug and fix for that either today or tomorrow. For the second point, I will go ahead and make the bug fix, and do a pull request so that we can get additional input on it. But I believe it's one of those things that will need

RE: [Discussion] Date handling inconsistencies - resend

hello jason. thanks for this comprehensive summary. in my opinion for the long run the best solution is to use ISO-8601 for all locations and deprecated the ECMA format and discourage usage of it (but keep it where it's parsed for backward compatibility). in this way we have two open points: