RFR: 8231717: Improve performance of EBCDIC charset decoding for COMPACT_STRINGS

Mon Oct 7 17:03:32 UTC 2019

Thanks Roger, much appreciated

Andrew Leonard
Java Runtimes Development
IBM Hursley
IBM United Kingdom Ltd
internet email: andrew_m_leonard at uk.ibm.com 

From:   Roger Riggs <Roger.Riggs at oracle.com>
To:     Andrew Leonard <andrew_m_leonard at uk.ibm.com>
Cc:     Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com>, Claes Redestad 
<claes.redestad at oracle.com>, core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
Date:   07/10/2019 17:11
Subject:        Re: RFR: 8231717: Improve performance of EBCDIC charset 
decoding for COMPACT_STRINGS

ok, I'll sponsor, update the webrev and I'll pick up the changeset from 
there.

Roger

On 10/7/19 11:52 AM, Andrew Leonard wrote:
Thanks Roger, 

Yes, agree some comment to be explicit about it being the LATIN1 String 
coding would be good. 
Are you ok to sponsor please? since Claes and Alan have reviewed. 

Cheers 
Andrew 

Andrew Leonard
Java Runtimes Development
IBM Hursley
IBM United Kingdom Ltd
internet email: andrew_m_leonard at uk.ibm.com 

From:        Roger Riggs <Roger.Riggs at oracle.com> 
To:        Andrew Leonard <andrew_m_leonard at uk.ibm.com> 
Cc:        Claes Redestad <claes.redestad at oracle.com>, 
core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com> 
Date:        07/10/2019 16:43 
Subject:        Re: RFR: 8231717: Improve performance of EBCDIC charset 
decoding for COMPACT_STRINGS 

Hi Andrew,

I'm fine with isLatin1Decodable/LATIN1DECODABLE.

To avoid confusion with "Latin-1", aka ISO-8859-1 the character set, 
in prose, there may be an opportunity to reinforce that it refers to the 
compact LATIN1 String coding.  Perhaps in ArrayDecoder.

I don't need to see another webrev. 

Thanks, Roger

On 10/7/19 10:29 AM, Andrew Leonard wrote: 
Thanks for the feedback, so we just need to decide on the variable name.. 
I am leaning towards isLatin1Decodable since it is closer to implying the 
charset is decodable to Latin1 via the decodeToLatin1() method, whereas 
isLatin1Compatible sort of implies it is "compatible" and decodable in 
certain circumstances like ASCIICompatible is, which is not the case here. 
So Roger, you ok with isLatin1Decodable/LATIN1DECODABLE ? 

Cheers 
Andrew 

Andrew Leonard
Java Runtimes Development
IBM Hursley
IBM United Kingdom Ltd
internet email: andrew_m_leonard at uk.ibm.com 

From:        Claes Redestad <claes.redestad at oracle.com> 
To:        Roger Riggs <Roger.Riggs at oracle.com>, Andrew Leonard 
<andrew_m_leonard at uk.ibm.com> 
Cc:        core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net 
Date:        07/10/2019 13:07 
Subject:        Re: RFR: 8231717: Improve performance of EBCDIC charset 
decoding for COMPACT_STRINGS 

On 2019-10-04 21:55, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Can you change the name to LATIN1COMPATIBLE?
> Its similar to the ASCIICOMPATIBLE case and tied in to the Latin1 coding 

> for used in StringCoding.

To me, compatible has a specific meaning that's not really the case
here. Perhaps isLatin1Decodable/LATIN1DECODABLE would roll better of the
tongue? This would also align nicely with the decodeToLatin1 method.

Patch looks good to me as-is, though.

Thanks!

/Claes

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU 