2011/7/20 Marshall Schor <m...@schor.com> > > This may be all wrong-headed - but I wonder if the basic use case is to do > something like the following: Take a bunch of annotators (and maybe flow > controllers) together with a top-level aggregate XML specifying parameter > overrides, etc., and "wrap" them so they become a single OSGi bundle, that > can > then be embedded in an OSGi container? If so, then perhaps instead of > having a > "set" of individually OSGi-i-fied annotators, like we do now, maybe we > should > have instead a tool that does this for a set of annotators, etc. >
the use case in Clerezza is slightly different as it allows both the scenario where one executes an existing pipeline (using OpenCalaisAnnotator and AlchemyAPIAnnotator) and the scenario when one runs a custom pipeline, eventually using other existing UIMA components, defined in another bundle. I still think having individual OSGi versions of each annotator would be better. 2011/7/20 Marshall Schor <m...@schor.com> > > > On 7/20/2011 11:18 AM, Marshall Schor wrote: > > > > On 7/20/2011 8:13 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote: > >> On 7/20/11 1:55 PM, Marshall Schor wrote: > >>> What does it mean to "deploy" inside of an Apache Felix instance? > >> I did that once, and simply embedded everything in one bundle, even UIMA > >> itself. This way I could use UIMA plus some AEs to do analysis as a > service > >> for other OSGi bundles inside Felix. > > This suggests having a tool to make this "easy"; but also suggests that > having > > individual addon annotators packaged up as a "complete UIMA pipeline" may > not be > > very interesting to anyone. > > > > Is this right? If so, perhaps we should not release this osgi versions > in the > > addons at this time. > Do you mean not in the binary package or not release them at all (i.e. not deploying them on Maven central too)? Tommaso That also would reduce the size of the distribution > > considerably (about 100 MB of 150 MB is for the OSGi versions). > oops, I was wrong - delete the following... > > In computing > > this, I also noticed that the tagger osgi packaging was missing the 19.5 > mb of > > statistical models... > > > > -Marshall > >> Jörn > >> >
