-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Mark,
On 2/11/20 9:47 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 11/02/2020 14:26, Christopher Schultz wrote: > >> This appears to be a bug in (at least old versions of) Java >> and/or native2ascii. I've got local installations of Java 8, 11 >> (Adopt), 11 (Oracle), and 13 (OpenJDK), and only Java 8 has a >> "native2ascii" binary present. I see ant's <native2ascii> task >> has its own implementation, but it's probably very simple, just >> like the native2ascii program itself. Java's Reader classes >> incorrectly interpret the BOM as an actual character instead of >> an ignorable UTF-8 control sequence. > > But the chances of us being able to "fix" the Ant implementation > are considerably higher :). Fair enough. ant handles this completely, so I'm happy to file a bug against it. It would, unfortunately, cause an incompatibility between <native2ascii> and Java's (legacy) native2ascii program. The ant team might reject the request. I guess that's no worse than the current situation :) >> Ensuring that the first line of the file is a comment or a blank >> line fixes things: >> >> # BOM first.property=foo second.property=bar >> >> becomes: >> >> \ufeff# BOM first.property=foo second.property=bar > > Does the BOM end up creating an additional property in this case? Probably, but who cares? Code is unlikely to do: bundle.getProperty([UTf-8 bom]) And get confused by what comes out. >>> Overall, I guess I am -0 on adding BOMs. >> >> Okay. This is a fairly recent change to Tomcat, and frankly, we >> (a) don't get a huge number of outside contributions which >> include changes to the localized properties files (except for the >> translation-only contributions, which have been great!) and (b) >> often ignore the non-English translations in the first place >> because we are lazy. >> >> I think maybe this can stay on the back-burner until we see if we >> end up with any problems. > > Sounds reasonable to me. It looks like we have options if we need > them but with a few minor issues to research / iron out first if we > go that way. > >> Does/can "checkstyle" check for valid UTF-8 byte sequences in >> .properties files? I think that may be a helpful check to add if >> it's not already in there. > > Don't know. +1 if such a thing exists. I know nothing about Checkstyle, so I'll defer to anyone who does know how to configure it to do these things :) - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - https://www.enigmail.net/ iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEMmKgYcQvxMe7tcJcHPApP6U8pFgFAl5C07kACgkQHPApP6U8 pFjsZhAAoyo8KeqHqs1ZakdexBQJ8g1YHuGKC87SG3Guw/GoMFTjsyU9sWPyAnBP wvizChhnWD3WaWKrEI+Tp4D35v/L1ORuwquDYIqRgxras+xvjnyzWDFfrYPA1WkF RQ5Ns4A8f/lkPAb+4Y2xKN8wLnWY/zmJ5GmJ0fibyORqlAfANgUp16hHaT4bDRDM AqPWbODT5YBhpTRurTqejJeXGJLfBFdxbH+liZdQ8uYeaYNSEV23YPXxVq5upgMD daZxkusaacu6Uz1F0w/6uAJJ65xo+qzeANYmJ0Hn+jfrWwtgspTPOfPct9VSpuJ7 YnBcllm8vvshjGYB/83Q/IaWdKQvJ+BhHwLatuS5gz7EaM4V3ibZiwXDyPOMEoek XeV983OgLw7IONEjhLXqKyooqywSpy9v0gU+GmRHh7fk453gFzBm3I7FF7FtZotw XE8OyOmyjUuw48v+NcjR0fAQ+wzgBYRlVItICY1s/OMr2dDAWcDB1jG2nlSdf2TV HGHqZrgvtOF+/v5wGCpZAdnjeU8qqOmk/m+SJwK76nfz11e79MMCkDBjiVypet6E /LRbGzgjoZn3lAsApaLTKbp0kVaLEJlZ2Xg/DuzBCZWyvrGTiEEVC7Hr2aMsjsQq v4NHfogOMz5zcxyJ8nxGNTK5JHBXNp//kg9SWWUCFvf7UJRDFWg= =svCv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
