mirror of
https://github.com/TheAnachronism/docspell.git
synced 2024-11-13 02:31:10 +00:00
43 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
43 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
|
layout: docs
|
||
|
|
title: ISO8601 vs Millis
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
# ISO8601 vs Millis as Date-Time transfer
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Context and Problem Statement
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The question is whether the REST Api should return an ISO8601
|
||
|
|
formatted string in UTC timezone, or the unix time (number of
|
||
|
|
milliseconds since 1970-01-01).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
There is quite some controversy about it.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47426786/epoch-or-iso8601-date-format>
|
||
|
|
- <https://nbsoftsolutions.com/blog/designing-a-rest-api-unix-time-vs-iso-8601>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
In my opinion, the ISO8601 format (always UTC) is better. The reason
|
||
|
|
is the better readability. But elm folks are on the other side:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- <https://package.elm-lang.org/packages/elm/time/1.0.0#iso-8601>
|
||
|
|
- <https://package.elm-lang.org/packages/rtfeldman/elm-iso8601-date-strings/latest/>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
One can convert from an ISO8601 date-time string in UTC time into the
|
||
|
|
epoch millis and vice versa. So it is the same to me. There is no less
|
||
|
|
information in a ISO8601 string than in the epoch millis.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
To avoid confusion, all date/time values should use the same encoding.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Decision Outcome
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I go with the epoch time. Every timestamp/date-time values is
|
||
|
|
transfered as Unix timestamp.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Reasons:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- the Elm application needs to frequently calculate with these values
|
||
|
|
to render the current waiting time etc. This is better if there are
|
||
|
|
numbers without requiring to parse dates first
|
||
|
|
- Since the UI is written with Elm, it's probably good to adopt their
|
||
|
|
style
|