I suggest taking the patch as is and raising a new lower priority bug for the effective chrono aspect. Stephen
On 1 October 2013 19:51, roger riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > The proposed approach makes sense to me, shall I take the patch as is or > wait to integrate until for the mentioned update of effective chrono? > > Thanks, Roger > > > On 9/22/2013 10:27 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: >> >> The patch only changes the text of one of the two appendValueReduced >> methods. The patch does not handle week based years or provide for >> users to add their own year fields. It also does not handle >> formatting. >> >> After much thinking, I think the right solution is to add a new >> appendValueReduced method where "int baseValue" is replaced by >> "ChronoLocalDate baseDate". The new method would be used if you want >> year-like fields in multiple chronologies to work. The appendPattern >> method would be changed to use the new date variant for y/u/W >> >> The first of the two existing appendValueReduced methods can be >> removed as a simplification. >> >> Patch here: >> https://gist.github.com/jodastephen/6660394 >> >> Note that this patch still has a bug, as the effective chrono is not >> determined fully until the end of the parsing phase. However, that bug >> fix requires a bit of an internal redesign and since it does not >> affect the API it can be delayed, >> >> Stephen >> >> >> >> >> On 21 September 2013 20:15, roger riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The java.time reduced value parser does work as expected (issue 8024076) >>> for chronologies other than ISO. >>> The base value is assumed to be chronology independent but is not >>> converted to the requested Chronology before it is used. >>> >>> Please review: >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-two-digit-8024076/ >>> >>> Thanks, Roger >>> >>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8024076 >>> >
