On 7/21/2011 3:55 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > ... >> Would it even work if we removed the UIMA framework >> itself from being included in each OSGi bundle of an add-on annotator? > > I successfully tried it with Apache Felix starting first the > uimaj-ep-runtime then starting the annotators' bundles and then starting > (and using the services of) a third bundle which depends on them. > > Is it >> only usable with the Eclipse-buddy style of embedding? >> > on Apache Felix it worked also without the current configuration using > Eclipse-buddy style: > > > > <Eclipse-ExtensibleAPI>true</Eclipse-ExtensibleAPI> > > <Eclipse-BuddyPolicy>registered</Eclipse-BuddyPolicy> > > > thus using the default OSGi one.
I think a good test of this would be to regenerate the osgi annotator versions without the UIMA jars, but importing those, and then redo these tests - just to be sure things work. (I'm worried that without the buddy policy, the copy of the UIMA framework in its own separate bundle will load classes that can't be "seen" by the annotators it's loading them for. I'm worried that the previous testing didn't pick this up, because maybe the way these annotators were used, involved running the copy of the UIMA framework that was packaged in the same bundle as each annotator, and not running the copy which was in the separate bundle). I'll do a Jira for the work to (a) change the build to leave the dependencies as their own jars, instead of unpacking them, and (b) to remove UIMA framework things from the annotator bundles - substituting an import-package for these. Then, I'm hoping someone can build this and test in Felix and Stanbol :-) . -Marshall > In the end my opinion is that we should fix the current bundles as > highlighted by Marshall, include them in the 2.3.1 addons release and then > define a roadmap for a better OSGi support (we could use the wiki to collect > proposals/pros/cons/etc. ). > My 2 cents, > Tommaso
