|Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] com.ibm.icu requirement|
John Arthorne wrote:
I read this quote on the front page under "Why ICU4J":
"Java provides a very strong foundation for global programs, and IBM and the ICU team played a key role in providing globalization technology into Sun's Java. But because of its long release schedule, Java cannot always keep up-to-date with evolving standards."
Looking at the comparison I also see comments like "Since Java 5" or "Since Java 6" on some of the more prominent features of ICU4J that are now supported by the JRE.
I'm not in total agreement regarding the "nearly the same level of ...". I'd consider the differences fairly esoteric. For UI based applications, they might matter but I doubt they have any significance for a headless build tool. We are quite happy supporting the encodings listed here: http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/intl/encoding.doc.html and locales listed here: http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/intl/locale.doc.html and when it comes to dates and times stipulate a strict ISO-8601 format anyway. If we didn't, we would also have to provide locale information and formatters with all meta-data.
On a related subject:
I think IBM should consider submitting parts of ICU4J to the Open JDK project. The international calendars could be rewritten to make the calendars seamlessly available through the standard java.util.Calendar API and the optimizations on the RuleBasedCollator would certainly be a very appreciated addition as well. Chances are that the lag times mentioned could be shortened radically. Do you know if anyone in the ICU4J project has looked into this?
Back to the top