[HarfBuzz] icu-le-hb

[Dejan Kovacevic]

 > Doesn't really matter as far as ICU goes - I don't think it would ever
> be diffed against ICU's code itself, so it's better as Behdad said to
> keep it closer to the HB code.

Probably it won't be diffed against HarfBuzz either... It's really just a separate file, yet another way to implement the Layout Engine. It does have the ICU LE public interface however. As such, technically speaking, I see it closer to ICU...  But either way, I have no preference or interest in one or the other. You can decide.


> back to the technical side --  does it matter that HB sometimes depends
> on ICU? That seems to be the only obstacle I see to having a 
> "--use-harfbuzz" type switch on the ICU LE.  Let me know what you think.


That's a good point. I'm not sure... Behdad is certainly more competent to talk about this.

Dejan


> -----Original Message----- 
> From: "Steven R. Loomis" <srl at icu-project.org> 
> To: "Behdad Esfahbod" <behdad at behdad.org> 
> Cc: "Dejan Kovacevic" <dejan at d-type.com>, harfbuzz at lists.freedesktop.org 
> Date: 11/15/13 13:49 
> Subject: Re: [HarfBuzz] icu-le-hb 
> 
> On 15/11/13 10:26, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > On 13-11-15 01:15 PM, Dejan Kovacevic wrote:
> >>  > Any reason you've made so much whitespace and cosmetic changes?  Makes
> >>> reviewing your work much harder than it has to be.
> >> Heh, I though the same before I started reviewing the original code... :)
> > I'm not talking about style here.  It just pollutes the diff output.
> 
> Doesn't really matter as far as ICU goes - I don't think it would ever
> be diffed against ICU's code itself, so it's better as Behdad said to
> keep it closer to the HB code.
> >> Anyway, I made these formatting changes to be more consistent with ICU Layout Engine's code. Once I realized that the wrapper code is really just the LayoutEngine.cpp, my idea was that this wrapper should perhaps be a part of ICU LE.
> > Not really.  It replaces ICU LayoutEngine, so doesn't make sense to be part of
> > it.  Though, now I'm going to propose that the wrapper be imported into ICU
> > itself as a compile-time option.
> So being a separate library, it doesn't really need to be part of 'ICU
> itself'. ICU would be happy to host this though if it makes things better.
> 
>  ( Legal side:  there's a copyright assignment process, but I'm glad to
> walk you through it. I'll write you off-list for follow up, but the
> process is at http://userguide.icu-project.org/dev/contributions and you
> might be interested in an 'ongoing form' if you want to contribute to
> the old LE side as well. I'll reply to our old thread about it. )
> 
> back to the technical side --  does it matter that HB sometimes depends
> on ICU? That seems to be the only obstacle I see to having a 
> "--use-harfbuzz" type switch on the ICU LE.  Let me know what you think.
> 
> -s