You’re right but we’ve never received a report of any charset interop. issues. Probably such a scenario has never been encountered by customers.
On 21 Mar 2014, at 05:54, Xueming Shen <xueming.s...@oracle.com> wrote: > Obj.java:#482 > It appears sun.misc.BASE64Decoder.decodeBuffer(String) uses String's > deprecated > String.getBytes(int srcBegin, int srcEnd, byte[] dst, int dstBegin). The > proposed change > now uses the jvm's default charset. It might trigger incompatible behavior > if the default > charset is not an ASCII compatible charset. But if the "Java object in > LDAP was encoded > with the platform default charset" (as the new comment suggested), the old > implementation > actually did not work on platform that the default encoding is not ASCII > compatible, such > as the IBM ebcdic. > > -Sherman > > On 3/20/14 3:48 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: >> On 3/19/14 12:28 PM, Xueming Shen wrote: >>> On 03/19/2014 11:37 AM, Mandy Chung wrote: >>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035807 >>>> >>>> Webrev at: >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8035807/webrev.00/ >>>> >>>> This patch converts the last 2 references to >>>> sun.misc.BASE64Encoder/Decoder from the jdk repo with java.util.Base64. >>>> We should also update the tests and I have filed JDK-8037873 for that. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Mandy >>> >>> The sun.misc.BASE64En/Decoder is MIME type, so it outputs the \r\n per 76 >>> characters during encoding, and ignores/skip \r or \n when decoding. The new >>> Base64.getEncoder/Decoder() returns the "basic" Base64 coder, which it never >>> inserts line separator when output, and throws exception for any non-base64- >>> alphabet character, including \r and \n. >>> >>> The only disadvantage/incompatibility (j.u.Base64.getMimeDecoer() vs >>> sun.misc.BASE64Decoder) of switching to j.u.Base64 MIME type en/decoder >>> is that the Base64 Mime decoder ignores/skips any non-base64-alphabet >>> (including \r and \n), while sun.misc.BASE64Decoder appears to simply >>> use the init value "-1" for any non-base64-alphabet character for decoding. >>> >>> I'm not familiar with the use scenario of ldap's Obj class, so I'm not sure >>> if >>> it matters (if it ever outputs/inputs > 76 character data, or even it >>> does,if >>> the difference matters). >>> >>> Btw, except getMimeEncoder(int ...) all other Base64.getXXXEn/Decoder() >>> returns singleton, so the de/encoder cache might not be necessary. >> >> Thanks Sherman. Vinnie confirms that it should retain the current behavior >> as there could be long-lived Java object in LDAP encoded with JDK 8 for >> example and then retrieved with JDK 9. >> >> Here is the updated webrev: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8035807/webrev.01/ >> >> Thanks >> Mandy >
