Name: rmT116609			Date: 01/29/2003


FULL PRODUCT VERSION :
java version "1.4.1"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.1-b21)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.4.1-b21, mixed mode)

FULL OPERATING SYSTEM VERSION :
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]

A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM :
The 1.4.1 JRE is now claiming that a certain "formal" Japanese date format that used to be parseable with the "FULL" style is now considered invalid. It is a format where the numeric components of the date are immediately followed by corresponding label characters for "year", "month", etc.

By the way, I couldn't find published specs on what patterns are considered valid date/time formats for each locale, nor an API for getting them. That would be helpful.


STEPS TO FOLLOW TO REPRODUCE THE PROBLEM :
Run the example on a 1.3.1_03 and 1.4.1 JRE. You get an exception on the latter. (I am told it worked on 1.4.0 too.)


EXPECTED VERSUS ACTUAL BEHAVIOR :
1.3.1_03 result:
Sat Feb 01 00:00:00 EST 2003

1.4.1 result:
java.text.ParseException: Unparseable date: "2003?2?1?"
        at java.text.DateFormat.parse(DateFormat.java:334)
        at Test.main(Test.java:24)

ERROR MESSAGES/STACK TRACES THAT OCCUR :
java.text.ParseException: Unparseable date: "2003?2?1?"
        at java.text.DateFormat.parse(DateFormat.java:334)
        at Test.main(Test.java:24)

REPRODUCIBILITY :
This bug can be reproduced always.

---------- BEGIN SOURCE ----------
import java.util.Locale;
import java.util.Date;
import java.text.DateFormat;
import java.text.ParseException;

public class Test {

	public static void main(String[] args)
	{
		String s = "2003\u5e742\u67081\u65e5"; // "2003y2m1d"
		Locale l = new Locale("ja", "JP");
		DateFormat dff = DateFormat.getDateInstance(DateFormat.FULL, l);
		Date d = null;
		try {
			d = dff.parse(s);
			System.out.println(d);
		} catch (ParseException e) {
			e.printStackTrace();
		}
	}
	
}
---------- END SOURCE ----------

Release Regression From : 1.4.0_03
The above release value was the last known release where this 
bug was known to work. Since then there has been a regression.

(Review ID: 180503) 
======================================================================