Pending Character-related work - UncodeBlock2

[Ulf Zibis]

Short thoughts:

1. think about using PreHashedMap
2. think about using CharSequence build by StringBuilder as HashMap key. 
This would save the char[] copies while instantiating the immutable 
strings. More sophisticated you could use a simple byte[] containing the 
ISO-8859 coded chars. Latter would speed up the the comparison, as only 
half of raw bytes must be compared.

-Ulf

P.S.: I'm in vacation since Tuesday.


Am 26.08.2010 00:12, schrieb Martin Buchholz:
> Ping - I haven't heard any news from you lately.
> Is there anything holding up this change?
>
> (I'm finally getting some time to work on jdk7 again...)
>
> Martin
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 06:21, Masayoshi Okutsu 
> <masayoshi.okutsu at oracle.com <mailto:masayoshi.okutsu at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     All the changes look good.
>
>     Now, I'll take care of CCC for the forName change.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Masayoshi
>
>     On 6/29/2010 8:54 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
>         On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 16:32, Masayoshi Okutsu
>         <masayoshi.okutsu at oracle.com
>         <mailto:masayoshi.okutsu at oracle.com>>  wrote:
>
>             Hi Martin,
>
>             On 6/29/2010 6:18 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
>                 Hi Masayoshi,
>
>                 OK, I implemented your suggestion as a follow-on change
>
>                 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/UnicodeBlock2/
>                 <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emartin/webrevs/openjdk7/UnicodeBlock2/>
>
>
>             I've just skimmed the webrev. The changes look good. I
>             will review them in
>             details later today. A question is, do we need CCC
>             approval on the forName
>             change? Strictly speaking, it's a behavioral change.
>
>         Yes, I am changing the javadoc.  On the other hand, this
>         brings the
>         code and spec
>         into compliance with the Unicode standard, which was already
>         documented,
>         so one can regard this as a clarification and bug fix!
>
>         I leave it to you to decide whether to submit this to CCC.
>
>         Of course, it is an incompatible change, but the mildest such.
>
>         "''
>         Were you really depending on UnicodeBlock.forName("----basic __
>         latin") throwing?
>         """
>
>
>                 (I plan to commit the already reviewed earlier batch
>                 of changes soon)
>
>                 BTW: is jdk7 going to implement the 5.2.0 version of
>                 the standard?
>                 If so, then we should make some further changes, like
>                 accepting "ASCII"
>                 as an alias for "Basic Latin".
>
>
>             It's very likely Unicode 6.0 which should be released in
>             September. Yuka has
>             done all 5.2.0 changes, but she is waiting for some legal
>             approval. Oracle
>             legal takes much more time to review.
>
>         I see....  Legal response time was already very long during
>         the Sun era.
>
>         Martin
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/attachments/20100826/72104a20/attachment.html>