On Monday, July 14, 2003 5:34 AM, Mark Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... > > Of course > > Java already includes some parts of ICU, but other things are in > > ICU4J are difficult now to integrate in Java, simply because IBM > > forgot to modularize ICU so that it can be integrated slowly. > > Accepting ICU4J as part of the core is a big decision choice, > > because ICU4J is quite large, and there are certainly developers > > for Java that would not accept to have 1 aditional MB of data and > > classes loaded in each JVM (particularly because the integration > > of ICU would affect a lot of core classes for the Java2 platform > > now also used for small devices). > ... > > For example, it is impossible to integrate the ICU's Normalizer > > class in Java without also importing the UChar class and all its > > related services for UString, such as transliterators, and > ... > > You are very misinformed about ICU4J. I hae tried several times to do it. It does not work: you may effectively remove some tables your don't need, but trying to extract just the normalizer is a real nightmare. I tried it in the past, and abondonned: too tricky to maintain, and I retried it recently (one month ago, from its CVS source) and this was even worse than the first time. I know that there's now a recent announcement (less than 1 month ago) for its modularization, but it's true that I did not check the new "modularized" sources. So my application of ICU4J is still only when I can accept the whole package, as maintaining a stripped-down customization is too tricky. But may be this has changed, I just updated my ICU sources from CVS. I'll recheck it to see if a "ICU Light" version can be created (which would only keep the core features, without the support for tailoring rules compiled at run-time). -- Philippe. Spams non tolérés: tout message non sollicité sera rapporté à vos fournisseurs de services Internet.
