On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 02:19:52 GMT, Shaojin Wen <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> `JapaneseChronology` is not extending `IsoChronology`, and that is the gist >> of the change I suggested. > > I added the testcase of IsoChronology and it also passed. The distinction is pretty subtle, I was referring to the `Chronology.isISOBased()` method. (True for JapaneseChronology). IsoChronology is final, so there are no subclasses. This does address the compatibility issue and is an improvement over the original proposal. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16033#discussion_r1398626377
