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 > >
