[JSR-354] Re: General Questions raised by Chris Pheby
- From: Anatole Tresch <atsticks@...>
- To: jcurrency_mail@...
- Subject: [JSR-354] Re: General Questions raised by Chris Pheby
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:31:06 +0100
some point from my side:
1) Timestamp Modelling:
> There should be a good reason, interfaces in public APIs like 310 and others don't simply extend Serializable, nor others like Comparable.
That was never intended.
> The Temporal JavaDoc probably shows how this could look like for both:
> This interface places no restrictions on implementations and makes no guarantees about their thread-safety. All implementations must be
So I try to be more clear: the question is, if should define the serialization format. Of course, we will require from the spec/javaDoc that implementations must be seriazable/comparable and the TCK should also check that.
The question was if we should additionally define how a value must be serialized, e.g.
- two longs for the decimal parts (the first one also containing the sign)
- the internal precision (int)
- The implementation class (String)
The current spec makes a proposal about this, which is already marked as not optimal, or inappropriate. But before starting a discussion on the format, we have to decice, if we want to define explicitly a format at all or just define what values must be serialized, but leave the concrete format to the implementations.
So now I will stop for some times, leaving space for other opinions ;-)