Johnsd11 commented on issue #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ctakes/issues/66#issuecomment-2836014539

   I understand your feelings.  Not everyone has the ability to upgrade things. 
 I was responding because I wanted folks to know it was possible.  My use case 
is different than what I typically see here.  I've got an enterprise solution 
that uses cTAKES to process 7 million pages of text daily.  I forked my version 
years ago because there of inefficiencies in certain parts of the library (e.g. 
the dependency parser) that made it otherwise impractical to deploy for my 
level of volume.  When version 4 came out, I performed a manual difference of 
the code to get the updates.  I expect to do the same for version 5 (if for no 
other reason, to speed up the build time).
   
   Since then, we've performed regular upgrades.  Most of them were pretty 
straightforward, which is why I don't think getting it past 1.8 would be a huge 
issue for most developers.  I know I made a few modifications when updating 
Spring (I believe from 3.x to 4.x, but it's been a while and I'm currently on 
6.0.3), and a couple when updating Lucene.  I also know that the most recent 
upgrade to Hibernate was a bit painful.  In fact, there were couple of 
functions in ytex that I simply commented out since they weren't being 
referenced anyway.  But those are the only "hitches" I've ever had during a 
migration.
   
   I would strongly suggest anyone doing the upgrade make sure they do a full 
regression test.  I don't trust standard JUnit tests because of the nature of 
NLP, so I actually compare annotations on a 3 million page test set to ensure 
that nothing is broken.  That's probably a larger set than most of you need, 
but obviously more is better.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to