java - ThreeTen-Backport implementation vs. backport of JSR-310? -


note: not duplicate of comparing threeten backport jsr-310. question more specific.

in company, i'm trying devops o.k. use of threeten-backport refactoring legacy code (which because of deployment constraints weblogic 10.3.6.0 can't upgrade java 6 , can't use version of jodatime beyond version 1.2.1).

i can see devops having issue statement on threeten-backport's github page:

the backport not implementation of jsr-310, require jumping through lots of unnecessary hoops. instead, simple backport intended allow users use jsr-310 api on java se 6 , 7.

when ask me "not implementation" means, need able explain them. however, word implementation can have wide semantic range, , i'm not sure meant myself.

so question is, in contexts this, meant implementation vs. backport? since jsr-310 backport , not implementation, there counter example of use, is implementation of else, in same sense threeten-backport not implementation of jsr-310? actual implementation of jsr-310 java 6 if such thing existed, , how different threeten-backport?

jsr-310 formal specification controlled java community process (jcp) , whole heap of legalistic controls. implementation of jsr, including jsr-310, requires passing testing kit , other hurdles.

in case of jsr-310, jsr integrated java 8 itself, means not possible implement jsr independently. there no testing kit jsr-310 outside jdk. no piece of code can implement jsr-310 outside jdk itself.

thus, threeten-backport close implementation of jsr-310 specification without being implementation, "implementation" reference jsr-310 specification.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

android - Gradle sync Error:Configuration with name 'default' not found -

java - Andrioid studio start fail: Fatal error initializing 'null' -

html - jQuery UI Sortable - Remove placeholder after item is dropped -