Hi all,

In line with Jeff and Richard, I agree to transfer it (back) over to our 
opennlp-sandbox. 
The component in question does not really have great value, it seems.

It shall exist in the sandbox for those people that require an example on how 
to build a web service on top of opennlp-tools. 
Maybe, someone comes along and puts some time and effort into the code with 
tests and better docs.

Best,
Martin


> Am 29.10.2024 um 13:46 schrieb Jeff Zemerick <jzemer...@apache.org>:
> 
> I am +1 to moving it back to the sandbox. It has been a long time since I
> have heard of it being used.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeff
> 
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 8:23 AM Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> I was looking at removing the Jackson dependencies in the OpenNLP core and
>> noticed that there is "opennlp-brat-annotator" which was moved from the
>> sandbox to the core in OPENNLP-867.
>> 
>> Looking at the name finder resource, it's just a web service that doesn't
>> actually use the model parameter and doesn’t bring much value to the core
>> project.
>> I even doubt, that anybody is using it.There are no tests.
>> 
>> Therefore, I would like to propose that this component be moved back to
>> the sandbox, as the module does not provide any value (IMHO) as it just
>> bloats our binary distribution.
>> If anyone actually useds it (from the core project), there is still the
>> possibility to build from sandbox or just copy the related code to their
>> projects.
>> 
>> From my POV, these two classes do not offer much value.
>> 
>> If we want to provide such a web service layer (in the future), we should
>> adhere to Jakarta EE standard and just bundle a WAR application, which can
>> be deployed in any EE application server to serve OpenNLP capabilities via
>> REST.
>> This could be started via a Maven plugin or in a standalone server
>> context. However, this has some other limitations in terms of resource
>> loading, but if there is interest, we could do that in a separate feature
>> request.
>> 
>> Gruß
>> Richard


Reply via email to