Re: Modules for individual supported languages?
In countries like Cambodia (Khmer), 45MB is a big deal and limits people wanting to download it (because of lack of speed and cost). I am all for splitting it up so the file can be smaller. With Maven it seems like it should be possible without any overhead once the change is made? -Nathan On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Dominique Pellé dominique.pe...@gmail.comwrote: Jan Schreiber wrote: Somebody by the name of Łukasz Janik posted this to our Facebook wall: prosze kazdy jezyk jako osobno I don't speak a single word of Polish, but according to Google Translator, this is a feature request to release single-language versions of LT. (Google and I might be wrong here of course.) ;-) I tend to agree with him. Given the fact that the vast majority of people probably doesn't actively use more than three languages, we're imposing a huge overhead on our users. We've discussed this before, but I'm not sure what the outcome was. I think the ideal solution would be if the users could configure the languages they want before downloading. If that is not possible, there should be a clean way to remove unwanted languages during or after installation. Maybe we could have a two-step download: In the first step, you download the main app, perhaps with English already on board. During install, you can choose whatever other languages you may need. The LT-2.3 download standalone file is currently 67Mb (45 Mb for LibreOffice) with all languages. Is it such a big deal? I prefer to have all languages and keep it simple. Benefits of simplicity tend to be underestimated. Regards Dominique -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
Re: Modules for individual supported languages?
Dominique Pellé wrote thus at 02:21 PM 05-10-13: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Jan Schreiber wrote: The LT-2.3 download standalone file is currently 67Mb (45 Mb for LibreOffice) with all languages. Is it such a big deal? I prefer to have all languages and keep it simple. Benefits of simplicity tend to be underestimated. Please allow me to offer my opinion. As I understand the current situation, I agree that LT remains to be for all languages. At the same time I also understand the demand for single language versions. Wanting a lighter program is one. The other is the perception that If it's meant for dozens of languages, it probably doesn't do one well. I'm speaking for myself as that's the idea I had when I was looking for a grammar checker extension. I went for After the Deadline first for this reason. Installing plugins over a plugin may be fine for us, but may confuse some users. It also demands more work, which I think is not worth doing, at least for the time being. I suggest replying with appreciation for the suggestion and that the developers cannot afford to do that at the moment. kb -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
Re: Modules for individual supported languages?
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Kumara Bhikkhu kumara.bhik...@gmail.com wrote: At the same time I also understand the demand for single language versions. Wanting a lighter program is one. The other is the perception that If it's meant for dozens of languages, it probably doesn't do one well. I'm speaking for myself as that's the idea I had when I was looking for a grammar checker extension. I'm one of the 'why do I need all this stuff? I don't speak these languages anyway'-guys. Therefore +1 for individual language modules/extensions. Installing plugins over a plugin may be fine for us, but may confuse some users. It also demands more work, which I think is not worth doing, at least for the time being. That's also my opinion. LO/OO seem to have the idea of introducing dependencies for extensions but the current implementation just supports the version of LO/OO and the it's not even user-friendly implemented because missing dependencies will result in an error dialog (http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Dependencies) instead of allowing the user to download the dependencies. LO/OO provides dictionaries when installing it. Can't we use them instead of our own hunspell dictionaries? Languages such as german stiff have a huge grammar.xml beside the dictionary, but leaving out the dictionaries is already a huge win: the ZIP has a size of ~24 MB instead of ~44 MB. -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
Re: Modules for individual supported languages?
W dniu 2013-10-05 11:18, Stefan Lotties pisze: On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Kumara Bhikkhu kumara.bhik...@gmail.com wrote: At the same time I also understand the demand for single language versions. Wanting a lighter program is one. The other is the perception that If it's meant for dozens of languages, it probably doesn't do one well. I'm speaking for myself as that's the idea I had when I was looking for a grammar checker extension. I'm one of the 'why do I need all this stuff? I don't speak these languages anyway'-guys. Therefore +1 for individual language modules/extensions. This is a nice idea. Again, I'm all for it but I don't need this personally, so someone has to volunteer to do this. Installing plugins over a plugin may be fine for us, but may confuse some users. It also demands more work, which I think is not worth doing, at least for the time being. That's also my opinion. LO/OO seem to have the idea of introducing dependencies for extensions but the current implementation just supports the version of LO/OO and the it's not even user-friendly implemented because missing dependencies will result in an error dialog (http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Dependencies) instead of allowing the user to download the dependencies. LO/OO provides dictionaries when installing it. Can't we use them instead of our own hunspell dictionaries? Languages such as german stiff have a huge grammar.xml beside the dictionary, but leaving out the dictionaries is already a huge win: the ZIP has a size of ~24 MB instead of ~44 MB. You made some mistake in your calculation: German hunspell dictiories are all around 1 MB. When zipped, it's around 640 k. Also, hunspell dictionaries are not even included in our LO/OO extension download. Regards, Marcin -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
Re: Modules for individual supported languages?
LO/OO provides dictionaries when installing it. Can't we use them instead of our own hunspell dictionaries? Languages such as german stiff have a huge grammar.xml beside the dictionary, but leaving out the dictionaries is already a huge win: the ZIP has a size of ~24 MB instead of ~44 MB. You made some mistake in your calculation: German hunspell dictiories are all around 1 MB. When zipped, it's around 640 k. Also, hunspell dictionaries are not even included in our LO/OO extension download. I built languagetool-office-extension, unpacked the ZIP file, removed all .dict-files and re-packed it. Aren't those the hunspell dictionaries? -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
Re: Modules for individual supported languages?
No, those are the postag dictionaries! Ruud On 05-10-13 13:15, Stefan Lotties wrote: LO/OO provides dictionaries when installing it. Can't we use them instead of our own hunspell dictionaries? Languages such as german stiff have a huge grammar.xml beside the dictionary, but leaving out the dictionaries is already a huge win: the ZIP has a size of ~24 MB instead of ~44 MB. You made some mistake in your calculation: German hunspell dictiories are all around 1 MB. When zipped, it's around 640 k. Also, hunspell dictionaries are not even included in our LO/OO extension download. I built languagetool-office-extension, unpacked the ZIP file, removed all .dict-files and re-packed it. Aren't those the hunspell dictionaries? -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
Re: Modules for individual supported languages?
W dniu 2013-10-05 13:15, Stefan Lotties pisze: LO/OO provides dictionaries when installing it. Can't we use them instead of our own hunspell dictionaries? Languages such as german stiff have a huge grammar.xml beside the dictionary, but leaving out the dictionaries is already a huge win: the ZIP has a size of ~24 MB instead of ~44 MB. You made some mistake in your calculation: German hunspell dictiories are all around 1 MB. When zipped, it's around 640 k. Also, hunspell dictionaries are not even included in our LO/OO extension download. I built languagetool-office-extension, unpacked the ZIP file, removed all .dict-files and re-packed it. Aren't those the hunspell dictionaries? No. Hunspell files have .dic extensions. These are tagger dictionaries and LO/OOo does not contain anything like this. Regards, Marcin -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
Re: Modules for individual supported languages?
W dniu 2013-10-03 21:24, Jan Schreiber pisze: Somebody by the name of Łukasz Janik posted this to our Facebook wall: prosze kazdy jezyk jako osobno I don't speak a single word of Polish, but according to Google Translator, this is a feature request to release single-language versions of LT. (Google and I might be wrong here of course.) ;-) You're right. Łukasz Janik has been pushing this for years now ;) I tend to agree with him. Given the fact that the vast majority of people probably doesn't actively use more than three languages, we're imposing a huge overhead on our users. I'm not so sure that the overhead is so huge, given that the broadband user base is growing every year. We've discussed this before, but I'm not sure what the outcome was. I think the ideal solution would be if the users could configure the languages they want before downloading. If that is not possible, there should be a clean way to remove unwanted languages during or after installation. Maybe we could have a two-step download: In the first step, you download the main app, perhaps with English already on board. During install, you can choose whatever other languages you may need. The easiest way for (Libre|Open)Office users would be to have separate downloads for every language, just like with spelling dictionaries. This is already feasible due to modularization. We can already create this via Maven poms. Also, some languages could even offer spelling hooks to (L|O)Office to replace the deadly slow hunspell. Same goes for the Firefox extension, and the standalone app. The only remaining problem is that for bilingual rules, we really need some mechanisms to communicate between the modules, and to download modules on the fly. Office users don't use that, but for CheckMate (translation QA) that could be a problem. Regards, Marcin -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
Re: Modules for individual supported languages?
On 04.10.2013, at 10:03, Marcin Miłkowski list-addr...@wp.pl wrote: The only remaining problem is that for bilingual rules, we really need some mechanisms to communicate between the modules, and to download modules on the fly. Office users don't use that, but for CheckMate (translation QA) that could be a problem. Downloading on the fly could be solved by hooking into the resource loader mechanism that has been suggested elsewhere. In fact, I that would be implemented, I was thinking of using it for enabling exactly that. In DKPro Core, we enabled many of the language analysis modules to automatically download their models from a Maven repository, but for LanguageTool, we currently still bundle the whole bunch because this loader mechanism is lacking. -- Richard -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
Modules for individual supported languages?
Somebody by the name of Łukasz Janik posted this to our Facebook wall: prosze kazdy jezyk jako osobno I don't speak a single word of Polish, but according to Google Translator, this is a feature request to release single-language versions of LT. (Google and I might be wrong here of course.) ;-) I tend to agree with him. Given the fact that the vast majority of people probably doesn't actively use more than three languages, we're imposing a huge overhead on our users. We've discussed this before, but I'm not sure what the outcome was. I think the ideal solution would be if the users could configure the languages they want before downloading. If that is not possible, there should be a clean way to remove unwanted languages during or after installation. Maybe we could have a two-step download: In the first step, you download the main app, perhaps with English already on board. During install, you can choose whatever other languages you may need. --Jan -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
