Hi Chris,

   I support you and Chris in getting rid of the ODBC package's TimeStamp.
Is there a test suite?  Have you gone through the effects of relying on
Squeak's TimeStamp?  Any good or bad news there?

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi. First, the background.
>
> I've been living in (and using daily) an image dating back to roughly 4.10
> times, but updated to some point post-5.1 , and lately it has become very
> clear that I have really done something nasty to the image.  When I save
> and quit, errors pop up, but it saves successfully and restarts without
> errors.
> On the machine I saved it on.  I can't get the image to run on any other
> system that I have access too, which is scary.
>
> I think this is related to the fact that I use ODBC, which has its own
> definition of TimeStamp.  This has collided significantly with the current
> Squeak definition of TimeStamp, and I think this collision has caused my
> these issues.
>
> I'll be working on a new packaging of the ODBC client that doesn't
> reference TimeStamp at all, but rather deals with DateAndTime.  But that's
> just one package that used a 'TimeStamp' - I believe there are others out
> there.  Which brings up my question here:
>
> Can we remove TimeStamp from the back package?
>
> Its representation is definitely not what any older package would expect
> of TimeStamp.
> TimeStamp appears to be a shim over DateAndTime for: TestRunner/SUnit,
> SqueakMap, Monticello, and ChangeRecord.  These could learn to use the
> DateAndTime, although that would require careful changes (very careful!).
>
> Thanks,
> cbc
>
>
>
>


-- 
_,,,^..^,,,_
best, Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20170331/8a8e6b06/attachment.html>