ping? Do others feel we should leave this alone, or fix it (breaking
backwards compatibility)? -Marshall

On 5/15/2010 11:11 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> Here's another possible issue:
>
> The two projects that use the namespace with "incubator" end up
> generating package names that don't start with our official package
> prefix of "org.apache.uima".  Instead the generated classes start with
> org.apache.incubator.uima.
>
> I guess I don't think that's a serious flaw, but others might know
> otherwise?
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 5/15/2010 9:47 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>   
>> We have several projects in the sandbox (ConfigurableFeatureExtractor,
>> DictionaryAnnotator, RegularExpressionAnnotator, SimpleServer) that use
>> XMLBeans.  Each of these specifies a small XML "language" for users to
>> write in.  Part of this specification is a namespace for the language
>> elements.
>>
>> Because of the way XML Beans works, the namespace chosen turns into a
>> package name by some common sense rules.  Details are described by
>> section C of the Java API for XML Binding (JAXB) specification.
>>
>> The namespaces chosen for these and the corresponding derived package
>> names are:
>>
>> ConfigurableFeatureExtractor:
>>     http://www.apache.org/uima/tools/cfe/config/XMLBeans
>>         org.apache.uima.tools.cfe.config.xmlBeans
>>
>> SimpleServer: 
>>     http://uima.apache.org/simpleserver/config/xml
>>         org.apache.uima.simpleserver.config.xml
>>
>> RegularExpressionAnnotator:
>>     http://incubator.apache.org/uima/regex
>>         org.apache.incubator.uima.regex
>>
>> DictionaryAnnotator
>>     http://incubator.apache.org/uima
>>         org.apache.incubator.uima
>>
>> -------------
>> User code has been written that now depends on these namespaces, so
>> changing them require users to update their code (breaking backward
>> compatibility). 
>>
>> All of these start with org.apache.uima or org.apache.incubator.uima. 
>> Some of them further qualify by a name corresponding to the project
>> within UIMA, but one doesn't (the DictionaryAnnotator).
>>
>> If it weren't for backward compatibility, I would want to
>> 1) remove "incubator"
>> 2) change DictionaryAnnotator to include DictionaryAnnotator
>>
>> But I'm thinking that we should not change these, because having old
>> user-written usages of these continue to work is more important than
>> cleaning this up.
>>
>> Other opinions?
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>   

Reply via email to