Hi Nasser,
From openjdk's perspective It would be preferred to direct the develop
to use the charset
implementation provided by IBM, or the reliable third party that has the
appropriate knowledge,
experience and resource to support/maintain those charsets such as the
icu4j charset
project. I have been pulling the data from that huge icu-charset-data
file and implement/maintain
them based on my best knowledge, but I'm sure engineers from IBM or the
icu project probably
can do a much better job to implement/maintain/update those charsets
going forward.
As first step we can separate those IBM charsets from the jdk.charset
into a separate package
somewhere and configure them to be built into java.base and
jdk.charsets, for aix platform only.
Then we can further discuss the best way to handle/distribute those
charsets that are not needed
for the java.base module (for vm startup). As I said, it would be ideal
if we can remove them from the
openjdk repo/binaries complete and direct the developer/user to use the
icu4j charset provider
for those encodings, when needed. But given the possible compatibility
concern, we might want to
phase this work out gradually in next major release.
Thanks,
Sherman
On 7/17/18, 6:48 AM, Nasser Ebrahim wrote:
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.
