Hello,
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8039474
Patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8039474/webrev.00/
The change is to specify the charset for the String where none had been before.
The extant test sun/misc/Encode/GetBytes.java appears to suffice for this.
Thanks,
Brian
On 10 Apr 2014, at 02:19, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Issue:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8039474
> Patch:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8039474/webrev.00/
The change looks fine to me Brian.
Trivially, you could ( but of not have to ) use
java.nio.charset.
Hi Chris,
Am 10.04.2014 11:04, schrieb Chris Hegarty:
Trivially, you could ( but of not have to ) use
java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets.ISO_8859_1 to avoid the cost of String to
CharSet lookup.
In earlier tests Sherman and I have found out, that the cost of initialization of a new charsets
On 10 Apr 2014, at 11:03, Ulf Zibis wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Am 10.04.2014 11:04, schrieb Chris Hegarty:
>> Trivially, you could ( but of not have to ) use
>> java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets.ISO_8859_1 to avoid the cost of String to
>> CharSet lookup.
>
> In earlier tests Sherman and I have f
Correction ...
Am 10.04.2014 12:03, schrieb Ulf Zibis:
Hi Chris,
Am 10.04.2014 11:04, schrieb Chris Hegarty:
Trivially, you could ( but of not have to ) use java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets.ISO_8859_1 to
avoid the cost of String to CharSet lookup.
In earlier tests Sherman and I have found o
On Apr 10, 2014, at 3:27 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
> Correction ...
>
> Am 10.04.2014 12:03, schrieb Ulf Zibis:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Am 10.04.2014 11:04, schrieb Chris Hegarty:
>>> Trivially, you could ( but of not have to ) use
>>> java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets.ISO_8859_1 to avoid the cost of S
On 10 Apr 2014, at 15:57, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>
> On Apr 10, 2014, at 3:27 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
>
>> Correction ...
>>
>> Am 10.04.2014 12:03, schrieb Ulf Zibis:
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> Am 10.04.2014 11:04, schrieb Chris Hegarty:
Trivially, you could ( but of not have to ) use
j
Looks fine. Personally I would prefer the "canonicalized/real" name
"ISO-8859-1" though.
-Sherman
On 4/10/14 7:57 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
On Apr 10, 2014, at 3:27 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Correction ...
Am 10.04.2014 12:03, schrieb Ulf Zibis:
Hi Chris,
Am 10.04.2014 11:04, schrieb Chris
On Apr 10 2014, at 03:21 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2014, at 11:03, Ulf Zibis wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Am 10.04.2014 11:04, schrieb Chris Hegarty:
>>> Trivially, you could ( but of not have to ) use
>>> java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets.ISO_8859_1 to avoid the cost of String to
>
Shouldn't we be using the platform default character set rather than iso8859-1?
This change will change the charset used for all platforms not using iso885901
as their default.
It is certainly odd that sun.misc.CharacterEncoder(byte) and
sun.misc.CharacterDecoder(String) are not symmetrical but
How can one keep it symmetrical without forcing a particular encoding?
Brian
On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
> Shouldn't we be using the platform default character set rather than
> iso8859-1?
>
> This change will change the charset used for all platforms not using
> iso8859
It won't be symmetrical unless the default charset is ISO8859-1.
We can't change sun.misc.CharacterEncoder(byte) to use the default charset
because it has the longstanding behaviour of encoding to ISO8859-1 and I would
argue we can't change sun.misc.CharacterDecoder(String) from using the defaul
That is to say either explicitly or implicitly, i.e., using the default on both
ends?
On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Brian Burkhalter
wrote:
> How can one keep it symmetrical without forcing a particular encoding?
>
> Brian
>
> On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't
> On 10 Apr 2014, at 18:40, Mike Duigou wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 10 2014, at 03:21 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 Apr 2014, at 11:03, Ulf Zibis wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> Am 10.04.2014 11:04, schrieb Chris Hegarty:
Trivially, you could ( but of not have to ) use
java.nio.
=> Resolved: Won’t Fix.
On Apr 10, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
> Strange, wrongheaded and nonsensical behaviour, but longstanding.
This fix is to "un-do" a previous changeset (8036848), in which it replaces the
use
of deprecated String.getBytes(int,int,byte[],int) method with String.getBytes()
(which uses the default platform default charset), therefor causes a behavioral
change. This one is to undo that change to go back to
On 04/10/2014 11:08 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 10 Apr 2014, at 18:40, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Apr 10 2014, at 03:21 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 10 Apr 2014, at 11:03, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Hi Chris,
Am 10.04.2014 11:04, schrieb Chris Hegarty:
Trivially, you could ( but of not have to ) use
ja
Here’s an updated version with the encoder also modified for symmetry.
Brian
On Apr 10, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Xueming Shen wrote:
> String version has the cache mechanism of charset -> CharsetDe/Encoder, so if
> cache hits, you don't need to have String->Charset lookup.
>
> We don't cache the "ex
Would have been nice had I included the link:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8039474/webrev.01/
Brian
On Apr 10, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Brian Burkhalter
wrote:
> Here’s an updated version with the encoder also modified for symmetry.
On Apr 10 2014, at 11:08 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
>> On 10 Apr 2014, at 18:40, Mike Duigou wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 10 2014, at 03:21 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>>
On 10 Apr 2014, at 11:03, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Hi Chris,
Am 10.04.2014 11:04, schrieb Chris Hegarty:
>
On 04/10/2014 11:38 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Apr 10 2014, at 11:08 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 10 Apr 2014, at 18:40, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Apr 10 2014, at 03:21 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 10 Apr 2014, at 11:03, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Hi Chris,
Am 10.04.2014 11:04, schrieb Chris Hegarty:
Tr
On 10 Apr 2014, at 19:50, Xueming Shen wrote:
> On 04/10/2014 11:38 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
>> On Apr 10 2014, at 11:08 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>
On 10 Apr 2014, at 18:40, Mike Duigou wrote:
> On Apr 10 2014, at 03:21 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
>> On 10 Apr 2014, at
On 4/10/14 11:05 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
"Isn't all this sun.misc stuff going go away soon anyway?" <-- wishful thinking
We use them in our implementation and can't go away but at least access
will be denied with module boundary enforcement.
Mandy
On 04/10/2014 12:03 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 10 Apr 2014, at 19:50, Xueming Shen wrote:
On 04/10/2014 11:38 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Apr 10 2014, at 11:08 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 10 Apr 2014, at 18:40, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Apr 10 2014, at 03:21 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 10
On 4/10/14 11:34 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Would have been nice had I included the link:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8039474/webrev.01/
Brian - thanks for getting this fixed. Looks good to me.
I reviewed the fix for JDK-8036848 and missed the subtle compatibility
issue (thanks to Sher
Am 10.04.2014 17:20, schrieb Xueming Shen:
Looks fine. Personally I would prefer the "canonicalized/real" name
"ISO-8859-1" though.
Yep, using the canonical name guarantees best performance for the charset
lookup.
BTW, where are these links gone:
Bug 100092 -- Speed-up FastCharsetProvider
On 04/10/14 19:26, Ulf Zibis wrote:
BTW, where are these links gone:
This part of the question I can handle.
The six digit Bug numbers came from the legacy OpenJDK bugzilla instance.
Before it was shut down, those bug reports were transferred to JBS. In
the process, they were assigned new JD
Am 10.04.2014 21:53, schrieb Tim Bell:
On 04/10/14 19:26, Ulf Zibis wrote:
BTW, where are these links gone:
This part of the question I can handle.
The six digit Bug numbers came from the legacy OpenJDK bugzilla instance.
Before it was shut down, those bug reports were transferred to JBS. I
Am 10.04.2014 21:53, schrieb Tim Bell:
On 04/10/14 19:26, Ulf Zibis wrote:
BTW, where are these links gone:
This part of the question I can handle.
The six digit Bug numbers came from the legacy OpenJDK bugzilla instance.
Before it was shut down, those bug reports were transferred to JBS. In
On 04/15/14 16:47, Ulf Zibis wrote:
But where are the original attachments e.g. webrevs, patches ?
Are they lost forever ?
No, they are there on the new JBS bug reports. For some reason they are
not visible to users outside Oracle.
I will see if that can be changed.
Regards-
Tim
30 matches
Mail list logo
