Simple-date vs local-time

[Eli Naeher]

Thank you--it's helpful to hear that.

-Eli


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Marijn Haverbeke <marijnh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Definitely use local-time. The integration worked well, back in 2007,
> and neither library has changed very much since then, so I think you
> can feel safe that they are in good shape (others are using them as
> well).
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Eli Naeher <enaeher at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm working on moving an existing application to Postmodern, and I'm
> trying
> > to decide whether to go with simple-date or local-time. Currently all
> dates
> > are stored as "timestamp without time zone," but we are hoping to move
> > toward a timezone-aware model at some point down the road (although not
> > immediately--it might end up being a couple years).
> >
> > For this reason I'm considering using local-time instead of simple-date.
> > Times and dates are a big part of the application so I'd like to get this
> > right. I notice that the local-time cl-postgres integration has not had
> any
> > commits in a few years. I'm hoping this is because it is stable and
> > complete. Is anyone using it?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > -Eli
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/postmodern-devel/attachments/20131231/daed9dde/attachment.html>