2011/7/25 Marshall Schor <m...@schor.com> > Well, something is going on which I don't understand, if the OSGi packaged > annotators are working as currently packaged, that is, without including > the > UIMA Jars inside every annotator packaging, but rather having them provided > in a > separate OSGi bundle. > > This is because of the following though-experiment: > > The UIMA bundle has code which loads things using a configuration file (the > XML > descriptor for the Annotator, for instance). A typical piece of > "application" > code, running in a 3rd bundle (the other 2, being the UIMA framework, and > the > Annotator bundle), would invoke UIMA bundle things to read the XML > descriptor, > and then do some kind of UIMA bundle call to "instantiate" the analysis > engine. > This operation involves having the UIMA framework code (in its bundle) > loading > the classes (out of the Annotator bundle), but without the Eclipse-buddy > kind of > thing, the UIMA bundle code can't "see" the Annotator bundle classes. > > Tommaso, can you describe what the application code is doing differently > from my > though-experiment above, which makes things work (or where my thinking is > off-base)? >
To make this things work in the past without the Eclipse-buddy I created a 'utils' bundle which takes care of such class loading issues (i.e. allowing the use of delegate classloaders to get rid of the problem you described above), however this was prior the change in addons-osgi-runtime which removed the uimaj-ep-runtime from the annotators' dependencies, thus this should be tested again with the new configuration. However I do think it's better to clean things, as you're proposing in the 'redo of the OSGi packaging poms' thread, before doing other tests which could be suddenly invalidated by other changes :-) Tommaso > > -Marshall > > On 7/25/2011 5:35 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > > 2011/7/25 Jörn Kottmann <kottm...@gmail.com> > > > >> On 7/22/11 8:37 PM, Marshall Schor wrote: > >> > >>> I found a few things, concerning Eclipse-buddyPolicy on the web. [1] > >>> describes > >>> it, [2] says it isn't implemented in Felix and won't be, because it > causes > >>> problems (with GC and other things), [3] is a general discussion of > >>> workarounds. > >>> > >>> We actually put one of these kinds of workarounds into UIMA for logging > >>> [4], > >>> although not in an OSGi context. However [5] notes that that > workaround > >>> has > >>> issues, and that the proposal for adding this to OSGi itself, "fell out > of > >>> the > >>> specification for OSGi R4 V4.2 > >>> core specification." > >>> > >>> I think this needs more careful thinking:-) ... > >>> > >> So I guess the best option for us now, is to not release any > >> OSGi annotators, right? > >> > >> > > The current addons-osgi-runtime addons are working with Felix in Clerezza > at > > the moment (made some tests in the weekend) > > With regards to Marshall's and Jörn's comments I think we should drop the > > Eclipse-BuddyPolicy header, I remember the OSGi versions of annotators > > worked without it in the past. > > I can spend some more time on testing them removing the Eclipse > buddy-policy > > stuff. > > After the amount of work spent so far with them I would be happy to put > them > > inside the release (if there's consensus obviously); then we can refine > > things iteratively along future releases. > > Regards, > > Tommaso > > >
