Win a copy of Programmer's Guide to Java SE 8 Oracle Certified Associate (OCA) this week in the OCAJP forum!
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

converting from timestamp to date

 
David J Evans
Greenhorn
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi,

I have the following method



and to me, it should turn the long number, into whatever date that represents, and this works with some numbers. But when I try it with that number in the example (which I have just chosen arbitrarily), I get the error message(at compile time): integer number too large: 99500000000.

Anyway, I really don't understand why I am getting this error, and only this can sum up how I feel !

Please help!
 
Rusty Shackleford
Ranch Hand
Posts: 490
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
integers have a maximum size(2^31-1=2147483647) and that number exceeds it. Use an integer that is equal or less then Integer.MAX_VALUE (use this to verify the maximum value).
[ April 28, 2006: Message edited by: Rusty Shackleford ]
 
David J Evans
Greenhorn
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi, thanks for you reply.

I realise that the upper limit of an integer may be exceeded by that number, but I thought the long data type was for larger numbers?

Either way, what I want to achieve is turning a timestamp, back into a readable date, which I can do in PHP, so I'm sure java has a function to do it. The timestamp for about 2 minutes ago was this 1146261394418, which is 2 digits longer than the number in my example, but is returned through this function, as a long datatype.



So can anyone explain to me what's going on, or just simply, how I can turn my timestamp back into a human readable date.

Thanks
 
Ken Blair
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1078
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
You're using an integer literal instead of a long literal. Change it to 9500000000L and it will work.
 
Ken Blair
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1078
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Technically I should say an "integer literal of type int instead of an integer literal of type long" since technically they're both integer literals, but you get the point.
 
David J Evans
Greenhorn
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
cheers ken, you're on the ball.
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic