Skip to main content
Software Engineering

Return to Answer

Bounty Awarded with 50 reputation awarded by gnat
JSR-310 += https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=310 "'Date and Time API'"
Source Link
gnat
gnat
  • 20.5k
  • 29
  • 117
  • 310

JSR-310JSR-310 is based on nanoseconds, not milliseconds. As such, the minimal set of sensible methods are based on hour, minutes, second and nanosecond. The decision to have a nanosecond base was one of the original decisions of the project, and one that I strongly believe to be correct.

Adding a method for millis would overlap that of nanosecond is a non-obvious way. Users would have to think about whether the nano field was nano-of-second or nano-of-milli for example. Adding a confusing additional method is not desirable, so the method was omitted. As pointed out, the alternative get(MILLI_OF_SECOND) is available.

FWIW, I would oppose adding the getMillis() method in the future.

JSR-310 is based on nanoseconds, not milliseconds. As such, the minimal set of sensible methods are based on hour, minutes, second and nanosecond. The decision to have a nanosecond base was one of the original decisions of the project, and one that I strongly believe to be correct.

Adding a method for millis would overlap that of nanosecond is a non-obvious way. Users would have to think about whether the nano field was nano-of-second or nano-of-milli for example. Adding a confusing additional method is not desirable, so the method was omitted. As pointed out, the alternative get(MILLI_OF_SECOND) is available.

FWIW, I would oppose adding the getMillis() method in the future.

JSR-310 is based on nanoseconds, not milliseconds. As such, the minimal set of sensible methods are based on hour, minutes, second and nanosecond. The decision to have a nanosecond base was one of the original decisions of the project, and one that I strongly believe to be correct.

Adding a method for millis would overlap that of nanosecond is a non-obvious way. Users would have to think about whether the nano field was nano-of-second or nano-of-milli for example. Adding a confusing additional method is not desirable, so the method was omitted. As pointed out, the alternative get(MILLI_OF_SECOND) is available.

FWIW, I would oppose adding the getMillis() method in the future.

Source Link
JodaStephen
JodaStephen
  • 824
  • 6
  • 5

JSR-310 is based on nanoseconds, not milliseconds. As such, the minimal set of sensible methods are based on hour, minutes, second and nanosecond. The decision to have a nanosecond base was one of the original decisions of the project, and one that I strongly believe to be correct.

Adding a method for millis would overlap that of nanosecond is a non-obvious way. Users would have to think about whether the nano field was nano-of-second or nano-of-milli for example. Adding a confusing additional method is not desirable, so the method was omitted. As pointed out, the alternative get(MILLI_OF_SECOND) is available.

FWIW, I would oppose adding the getMillis() method in the future.