Additional infomation for JDK-8048123

Hi. I reported JDK-8048123 before. But I notice this issue is more complex. It's unable to attach files at the web form, so I post to ml. At first, I thought it's a issue of the fix for JDK-8173423. However, I think it's a issue of CalendarNameProviders now. I tested attatched AupplementalEraTe

Re: Additional infomation for JDK-8048123

Sorry, I did not know the mailing list strips out attachments. (Thanks for telling me, Martin.) I try to write down the test code and comparison table image below. At the Comparison table, I added the "Supplemental Era" behavior and "Expected?" behavior. Japanese usually use '平' or 'H' for abbre

Re: Additional infomation for JDK-8048123

it along > with the supplemental era's short name inconsistency. > > Naoto > > On 6/22/17 1:36 PM, Mitsuru Matsushima wrote: > > At the Comparison table, I added the "Supplemental Era" behavior and > > "Expected?" behavior. > > Japanese usual

The first year skipped when using UTC time for "jdk.calendar.sypplemental.era" system property

Hi, I found an issue about "jdk.calendar.sypplemental.era" system property. According toJavadoc of JapaneseImperialCalendar, the system property can specify "since" parameter as UTC time. However, on using UTC time, the first year of new era is skipped. The new era start with a second year as f

Re: The first year skipped when using UTC time for "jdk.calendar.sypplemental.era" system property

a.net > Subject: Re: The first year skipped when using UTC time for > "jdk.calendar.sypplemental.era" system property > > Hi Matsushita-san, > > I will look into it. Could you please file an issue about this? > > Naoto > > On 6/22/17 6:20 PM, Mitsuru M

Re: [10] RFR 8180469: Wrong short form text for supplemental Japanese era

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 b

Re: [10] RFR 8180469: Wrong short form text for supplemental Japanese era

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. >

Re: [10] RFR 8180469: Wrong short form text for supplemental Japanese era

sidering 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 th

Re: [10] RFR 8180469: Wrong short form text for supplemental Japanese era

(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 "