ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-3921:

Github user greghogan commented on the issue:

    Apologies for the long delay. I'd like to attempt to summarize this ticket 
and pull request to validate my understanding.
    Previously StringParser was using the system encoding and 
`GenericCsvInputFormat` was using UTF-8 for the delimiter and an overloadable 
UTF-8 for the comment prefix.
    StringParser's quoteCharacter remains a `byte` with no encoding.
    Now GenericCsvInputFormat can be configured with a charset which is used 
for the delimiter, comment prefix, and field parsers (only used in 
    Should `setCommentPrefix(String commentPrefix, Charset charset)` and 
`setCommentPrefix(String commentPrefix, String charsetName)` be removed from 
`GenericCsvInputFormat`? Would different encodings be used on the same file?
    Allow the user to set the character encoding in `CsvReader` which would be 
applied in `CsvReader.configureInputFormat`?
    Are the new tests checking the encoding? The test strings are using using 
characters common to UTF-8 and ASCII. We could instead use one of the UTF-16 
encodings from 

> StringParser not specifying encoding to use
> -------------------------------------------
>                 Key: FLINK-3921
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3921
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>    Affects Versions: 1.0.3
>            Reporter: Tatu Saloranta
>            Assignee: Rekha Joshi
>            Priority: Trivial
> Class `flink.types.parser.StringParser` has javadocs indicating that contents 
> are expected to be Ascii, similar to `StringValueParser`. That makes sense, 
> but when constructing actual instance, no encoding is specified; on line 66 
> f.ex:
>    this.result = new String(bytes, startPos+1, i - startPos - 2);
> which leads to using whatever default platform encoding is. If contents 
> really are always Ascii (would not count on that as parser is used from CSV 
> reader), not a big deal, but it can lead to the usual Latin-1-VS-UTF-8 issues.
> So I think that encoding should be explicitly specified, whatever is to be 
> used: javadocs claim ascii, so could be "us-ascii", but could well be UTF-8 
> or even ISO-8859-1.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

Reply via email to