I think that's a good path to go down. I also think it would be ok to *not* maintain compatibility with the existing CLI in places where things can be improved. While backward compatibility is helpful, a new major release implies there may be breaking changes. I don't have a good feel for how many users there are of the CLI but if I had to guess I would expect it to be somewhat low in comparison to users who integrate OpenNLP in their code. I'm happy to have my guess challenged though.
Would this be a good time to take a look at the things in the opennlp-sandbox and see if anything can be moved over to the main project? Thanks, Jeff On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 7:17 AM Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org> wrote: > FYI: Have invited the user list last week: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/wgj7oovl4ls7pmpbvbc9hoo895whjpd5 > > On 2025/02/13 11:35:49 Martin Wiesner wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > thanks Bruno for sharing your thoughts. > > > > Obviously, I’m a +1 for the idea of a more modularized form of opennlp > core components, see Richard's original post. > > > > To get things rolling, I’d suggest: > > The feedback and early conceptual phase could be open until say March > 1st 2025. Thoughts? > > > > Any more feedback is highly welcome. Should we, in addition, share the > modularization proposal (3.x) on the users list so the community can join > the discussion? > > > > Please participate in this discussion, especially if you are a senior > committer and/or PMC member of the OpenNLP project. > > > > Gruß > > Martin > > — > > > > > Am 09.02.2025 um 10:09 schrieb Bruno Kinoshita < > brunodepau...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Sounds like a good plan, especially "We also aim to maintain backward > > > compatibility" 👍 > > > +1 > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 11:06, Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> Martin and I were sitting on the ICE from Berlin back to Heilbronn > and had > > >> a discussion about modernizing OpenNLP's module structure. > > >> We also discussed that idea with Atita off-list in Berlin two days > ago :-) > > >> > > >> Our main goal is to split the CLI parts and define a solid API module, > > >> along with well-structured dependent modules something like „api“, > „cli“, > > >> „core“, „addons“, ... > > >> > > >> We also aim to maintain backward compatibility for the CLI, ensuring > that > > >> users can still grab the distribution binary or „opennlp-tools“ via > Maven > > >> as before. > > >> > > >> By implementing these changes, we believe OpenNLP will become more > > >> modular, flexible, and easier to maintain. > > >> This should make it easier to integrate OpenNLP into core libraries > while > > >> improving maintainability for future use cases. > > >> > > >> Our proposal would be, that we start with OpenNLP 3.x on a separate > branch > > >> to try things out and call this a step towards the 3.x series of > OpenNLP. > > >> > > >> WDYT? > > >> > > >> Gruß > > >> Richard > > > > >
