Yes, I believe that's correct.
Only inconsistency (outside of supplementary era support) is that "G"
pattern for SimpleDateFormat outputs differently between COMPAT provider
and CLDR provider, e.g., COMPAT returns "H" and CLDR returns "Heisei",
which comes from CLDR data using "Heisei" for "abbreviated" names.
Naoto
On 9/8/17 12:51 AM, Mitsuru Matsushima wrote:
Hi, Naoto-san,
Oh, I think I had misunderstood the behavior of COMPAT Provider.
COMPAT Provider provide values, each of them are the same form as Supplemental
Era, right?
I think the value I wrote before are wrong at Short form of COMPAT
(DateTimeFormatter).
Is there no inconsistency, isn't it?
---
Mitsuru
-----Original Message-----
From: Naoto Sato [mailto:naoto.s...@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 2:29 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
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
