Bumped ICU4N to 60.1.0-alpha.440#1353
Merged
NightOwl888 merged 3 commits intoJun 16, 2026
Merged
Conversation
…d documentation recommending to use the ICUTokenizer for Unicode compliance
paulirwin
approved these changes
Jun 16, 2026
paulirwin
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approved; note the typo that is failing the pre-commit check. Once fixed looks good to merge.
paulirwin
pushed a commit
to paulirwin/lucene.net
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2026
This was referenced Jun 23, 2026
Closed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #998
Description
This bumps ICU4N to 60.1.0-alpha.440 which contains the
Normalizer2concurrency patch in NightOwl888/ICU4N#122 that addresses the problems with random failures ofTestICUNormalizer2CharFilter.TestRandomStrings()in concurrent environments.ThaiTokenizerI made an attempt at documenting the "differences" between how
ThaiTokenizerbehaves and howICUTokenizerbehaves with Thai text. However, after adding several tests to check how they deal with transitions between Thai and non-Thai words and numerals, it turns out they behave identically in all cases I checked. I ended up temporarily replacing theThaiTokenizerwith the implementation ofICUTokenizerand discovered that all of the tests pass. So, theThaiWordBreakereffectively is a poor-man's way of implementing part of the UAX #29 http://unicode.org/reports/tr29/ spec, but we cannot guarantee that it does completely comply for the Thai language.I ended up adding documentation explaining that it does not guarantee to be compliant with the Unicode spec and recommended to use
ICUTokenizerinstead. But I am wondering whether we should just rewire theICUTokenizerinto theThaiTokenizerand eliminate the "JDK compatible" attempt that is not guaranteed to be compatible with the JDK, anyway.The JDK
RuleBasedBreakIteratorbehaves differently across different vendors and versions, so there really is no stable target to hit, anyway. Some implementations don't even include a dictionary-basedBreakIteratorimplementation, so Thai tokenization is impossible. Historically, this is one of the main motivations for creating thelucene-analysis-icupackage which guarantees stability across JDK versions.