You sure it's not a bug in the JDK? Just asking. The results are curious. On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote: > On 12 July 2011 18:56, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: >> 1/ FastDateFormat >> The date format "yyyy yyy yy y" is formatted with JDK 7 as "2003 2003 03 >> 2003" instead of "2003 03 03 03". So, should FastDateFormat follow the JDK >> in any case and adjust its result according the runtime? Interestingly >> Javadoc states already for Java 6: "For formatting, if the number of pattern >> letters is 2, the year is truncated to 2 digits; otherwise it is interpreted >> as a number." > > I think that since this release is not compatible with previous > releases, then [lang] should follow JDK 7 conventions only, with good > javadoc about what it does. > > Stephen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
