On 06/07/2018 14:56, Nasser Ebrahim wrote:
:
I understood you preferred option is 3 [Remove all extended charsets from
JDK (keep only default charsets) and use the extended charsets from third
party like ICU4J]. Just to confirm, so you meant we need to keep only the
standard charsets in the JDK and remove all the extended charsets from JDK
and use them from ICU4J OR you meant apply that only for the new extended
charsets. I think it is better to keep the consistency - either take all
extended charsets from ICU4J or maintain all extended charsets with JDK.
Keeping some extended charsets within JDK and use ICU4J for other extended
charsets may confuse the Java user.
I think the suggestion in Sherman's mail is to drop the 70 or so IBM
charsets from jdk.charsets. This will reduce the size of jdk.charsets
and eliminate the need to maintain these charsets (at least on non-AIX
builds). If developers need these charsets, say when connecting to
database on an IBM system, then they can deploy the ICU4J provider on
the class path or module path.
I don't think the suggestion impacts the 11 IBM charsets in java.base on
non-AIX builds or the non-IBM charsets in jdk.charsets. They may be
opportunities to drop some of these but that can be looked at separately.
Also I don't think the suggestion impacts the additional 12 IBM charsets
that are included in the AIX build of java.base at this time. From the
review threads, it seems there are supported locales on AIX that map to
these charsets so this is why they are in java.base.
-Alan.
