Joda-Time as JSR-310?
At its heart, JSR-310 is an effort to add a quality date and time library to the JDK. So, since most people consider Joda-Time to be a quality library, why not include it directly in the JDK?
Well, there is one key reason - Joda-Time has design flaws.
Now before everyone panics and abuses that line as a tweet, I need to say that Joda-Time is by far the best option curently available, and that most users won't appreciate the design flaws. But, I do want to document them, so the basis for the changes in JSR-310 is clear.
1) Human/Machine timelines
One element of clarity is a better understanding of the distinction between the two principle views of the timeline - Human and Machine.
Machines have one view - a single, ever increasing number. In Java we set zero as 1970-01-01T00:00Z and count in milliseconds from there.
Humans have a totally different view of time. We have multiple calendar systems (one primary, many others), which divide the timeline into years, months, days, hours, minutes and seconds. In addition, humans have time zones which cause the values to vary around the globe, and for there to be gaps and overlaps in the human timeline as DST starts and ends.
Much of the time, a conversion between the two timeline views is possible with a time zone, however in a DST gap or overlap, things are much less clear.
Joda-Time defines two key interfaces - ReadableInstant and ReadablePartial. Both the Instant class (simple instant in time) and the DateTime class (human view of an instant in time) are implementations of ReadableInstant. This is wrong.
DateTime is a human-timeline view of the world, not a machine-timeline view. As such, DateTime is much better thought of, and designed as, a LocalDateTime and a timezone rather than the projection of the machine timeline onto the human timeline. Thus, DateTime should not implement ReadableInstant.
2) Pluggable chronology
What is the range of values returned by this method in Joda-Time?:
int month = dateTime.getMonthOfDay();
The answer is not 1 to 12, but could be 1 to 13! (yet January is still 1 and December is 12)
The answer to this puzzler is down to pluggable chronologies. Each date/time class in Joda-Time has a pluggable chronology. This defines the calendar system that is in use. But most users of the API never check to see if the chronology is the standard ISO/ chronology before calling getMonthOfDay(). Yet, the Coptic chronology has 13 months in a year, and thus can return a range of 1 to 13.
A better solution would be to keep the date/time classes restricted to a single calendar system. That way, the result from each method call is clear, and not dependent on any other state in the class, like the chronology.
Joda-Time accepts null as a valid value in most of its methods. For date/times it means 1970-01-01T00:00Z. For durations it means zero. For peiods it means zero.
This approach causes random bugs if your code happens to provide a null to Joda-Time that you hadn't originally planned for. Instead of throwing an error, Joda-Time continues, and the resulting date/time is going to be different from what you want.
4) Internal implementation
Certain aspects of the internal implementation are complex, and the result of having pluggable chronologies and a misunderstanding of the machine/human divide in the timeline. Changing this is a big change to the code.
One particular area of trouble is managing DST overlaps. The behaviour in Joda-Time of these isn't that well defined.
Joda-Time isn't broken!
It does the job it was designed for, and does it much better than the JDK. And it is widely used and without too many major issues. However, after a few years, it is now clear where it could be designed better.
I took the decision that I didn't want to add an API to the JDK that had known design flaws. And the changes required weren't just minor. As a result, JSR-310 started from scratch, but with an API 'inspired by Joda-Time'.
I hope that explains the thought process behind the creation of a new API in JSR-310.