Hi Alan, Thank you for your inputs. I would like to clarify that all the IBM charsets (IBMXXXX) in jdk.charsets are not IBM platform specific charsets. For example, only 43 charsets out of 72 IBMXXXX in jdk.charsets are EBCDIC or IBM platform specific charsets. Similarly, many charsets in the list of 75 charsets which we would like to contribute are not EBCDIC charsets.
I feel we should have a standard guideline for the extended charsets. If we are keeping the extended charsets in the JDK, then we may want to consider all ICU/IANA approved charsets in JDK. Otherwise, we may want to keep only the standard charsets in JDK and remove all the extended charsets so that all extended charsets can be taken from third party libraries like ICU4J. If we decided to keep the extended charsets, then may be we can classify the extended charsets as ASCII and EBCDIC and the corresponding modules as jdk.ascii.charset and jdk.ebcdic.charset. Then, depends upon the platform, we can consider including either of the charset module or both. Please advise. Thank you, Nasser Ebrahim From: Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> To: Nasser Ebrahim <enas...@in.ibm.com>, Xueming Shen <xueming.s...@oracle.com>, core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net Date: 07/09/2018 01:25 AM Subject: Re: Adding new IBM extended charsets On 06/07/2018 14:56, Nasser Ebrahim wrote: > : > I understood you preferred option is 3 [Remove all extended charsets from > JDK (keep only default charsets) and use the extended charsets from third > party like ICU4J]. Just to confirm, so you meant we need to keep only the > standard charsets in the JDK and remove all the extended charsets from JDK > and use them from ICU4J OR you meant apply that only for the new extended > charsets. I think it is better to keep the consistency - either take all > extended charsets from ICU4J or maintain all extended charsets with JDK. > Keeping some extended charsets within JDK and use ICU4J for other extended > charsets may confuse the Java user. I think the suggestion in Sherman's mail is to drop the 70 or so IBM charsets from jdk.charsets. This will reduce the size of jdk.charsets and eliminate the need to maintain these charsets (at least on non-AIX builds). If developers need these charsets, say when connecting to database on an IBM system, then they can deploy the ICU4J provider on the class path or module path. I don't think the suggestion impacts the 11 IBM charsets in java.base on non-AIX builds or the non-IBM charsets in jdk.charsets. They may be opportunities to drop some of these but that can be looked at separately. Also I don't think the suggestion impacts the additional 12 IBM charsets that are included in the AIX build of java.base at this time. From the review threads, it seems there are supported locales on AIX that map to these charsets so this is why they are in java.base. -Alan.
