Mitsuru-san,
By those options I meant to address the inconsistency in
SimpleDateFormat, between COMPAT and CLDR, for the existing eras (e.g.
Heisei). As to the inconsistency you wrote below, I am not sure that's
worth doing, considering 1) it is aligned with CLDR, 2) supplemental era
functionality is for emergency situations till the era is officially
supported.
Naoto
On 9/6/17 11:16 PM, Mitsuru Matsushima wrote:
Hi, Naoto-san,
So, considering these, I have a couple of options. One is to use the newer
java.time.format APIs which can correctly handle
this, or use the
JDK8 locale data by specifying -Djava.locale.providers=COMPAT at runtime.
Hmm, I think the first option is ok.
However, the second one seems to be confused >
I guess the behaviors with COPMAT and Supplemental Era become follows:
* COMPAT (SimpleDateFormat)
Long: Heisei
Short: H
* COMPAT (DateTimeFormatter)
Long: Heisei
Short: H
Narrow: H
* Supplemental Era (SimpleDateFormat)
Long: NewEra
Short: N.E
* Supplemental Era (DateTimeFormatter)
Long: NewEra
Short: NewEra
Narrow: N.E
If this is true, the short value of Supplemental Era differs from COMPAT.
So CalendarNameProviderImpl should be conscious about the type of provider.
---
Mitsuru
-----Original Message-----
From: Naoto Sato [mailto:naoto.s...@oracle.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2017 2:49 AM
To: Matsushima Mitsuru(松島 充) <m-matsush...@bk.jp.nec.com>; core-libs-dev
<core-libs-...@openjdk.java.net>; i18n-dev
<i18n-dev@openjdk.java.net>
Subject: Re: <i18n dev> [10] RFR 8180469: Wrong short form text for
supplemental Japanese era
Hi Mitsuru-san,
Yes, I remember we discussed on this issue before. The reason that LONG and
SHORT names for Japanese era are the same
is that CLDR's era names are not very consistent on length. They have "eraNames",
"eraAbbr", and "eraNarrow" variations.
We simply assign LONG to eraNames and SHORT to eraAbbr in SimpleDateFormat.
Possibly the right solution is to provide
"narrow" option in SimpleDateFormat, but it would be breaking the compatibility
(text length of those pattern characters
just have two options, one is 4 or greater (=LONG), and the other is less than
4 (=SHORT)).
So, considering these, I have a couple of options. One is to use the newer
java.time.format APIs which can correctly handle
this, or use the
JDK8 locale data by specifying -Djava.locale.providers=COMPAT at runtime.
HTH,
Naoto
On 8/31/17 7:34 PM, Mitsuru Matsushima wrote:
Hi Naoto-san,
The fix looks good, though I'm not a reviewer...
By the way, I may have forgotten to inform you that there exist an issue at the
short form of SimpleDateFormat has an
issue.
The SimpleDateFormat class is only capable to treat two form, Short and Long.
At JDK9, the CLDR Provider become to default, the provider returns the same
value for the Short form and the Long form.
So, the behavior of SimpleDateFormat is incompatible to previous versions.
(See the Comparison table, I described before.)
---
Mitsuru
-----Original Message-----
From: i18n-dev [mailto:i18n-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf
Of Naoto Sato
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 7:56 AM
To: core-libs-dev <core-libs-...@openjdk.java.net>; i18n-dev
<i18n-dev@openjdk.java.net>
Subject: <i18n dev> [10] RFR 8180469: Wrong short form text for
supplemental Japanese era
Hi,
Please review the fix to the following issue:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180469
The proposed changeset is located at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naoto/8180469/webrev.00/
The problem was caused by the difference of the Era display name for "SHORT"
style between java.time and java.util.Calendar.
Naoto
