Hi Paul, Paul Benedict wrote:
> You sure it's not a bug in the JDK? Just asking. The results are curious. I asked that myself. Javadoc of the JDK can be interpreted this way. - Jörg > > 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
