On Wed, 2018-10-03 at 15:44 +0200, Tom Schindl wrote: > I'm late to this but while trying to bring our products up to 2018-09 I > found the removal of "com.ibm.icu.base" disturbing. > > The Mail from "Roland" says one should substitute "com.ibm.icu.base" > with "com.ibm.icu" which I think is a bad idea. > > The sole reason for "com.ibm.icu.base" was/is that you don't ship a 12MB > jar if you don't need any of the extra functionality "com.ibm.icu" provides.
Hey Tom, If people would like to have corresponding com.ibm.icu.base for any version of com.ibm.icu, that's fine. It would just be a matter of ensuring the "base" version is available for the latest one in use as I'd rather not accumulate many older versions. This is a similar situation to things like Batik or Lucene, where platform handles the set of bundles it cares about, but anyone wanting more has to do the extra work. The discussion for Platform to move to plain icu4j (from maven) was in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=536411 (comments 11-17) so it made sense to have everyone using the same thing, but maybe other projects outside SimRel may still want a smaller version so I'm not opposing this. For those projects, there is also the Photon Orbit repo which has the older versions (containing icu.base) as well. Cheers, -- Roland Grunberg _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
