I think I've got the BSFAnnotator "converted" to this new approach.
I'll put in a Jira and get the rest done, probably tomorrow. These will be built without the extra dependencies (that is, the osgi versions will have the same dependencies as the non-osgi versions). If the extra dependencies are "required" to get things started in Felix, it would be good to figure out more about that - perhaps marking some things as optional would allow starting? Also, these will be built without embedding uima-ep-runtime inside every bundle. So, this approach will need to be tested. It was interesting re-reading that previous thread discussing OSGi and UIMA. It seems that without Eclipse-buddy approaches, the framework, when given a (for example) name of an annotator class to load, would want to have some mechanism to use OSGi facilities to get that class loaded, and get a reference to it, when that class belongs to another "bundle". Until we have that kind of facility, it seems we'll need Eclipse-buddy loading or making annotator bundles "fragments" of the uima-ep-runtime bundle (or some other innovative approach :-) ) -Marshall On 7/25/2011 5:39 PM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > 2011/7/25 Marshall Schor <[email protected]> > >> Leaving aside the question of whether or not to ship OSGi versions of >> add-on >> annotators for the moment :-), >> >> I'm thinking of redoing the pom structure for this, in order to eliminate >> the >> possibility of Licenses, Notices, and dependencies getting "out of sync" >> between >> the ogsi versions and the non-osgi versions. >> > I agree this should be unified. > > >> To do this, I would do the following: >> >> 1) remove the addons-osgi and all of its subprojects. >> >> 2) add a new packaging type to the set of things we produce - currently we >> produce things like Jars and PEAR packagings. The OSGi packaging would be >> an >> additional kind. >> > so this would impact existing projects' POMs right? > I proposed such a change some time ago which I think would be less hard to > maintain [1]. > > >> It would use the identical LICENSE and NOTICE files, and the same >> dependencies. >> >> Now, I know that some of the OSGi packagings have *different* dependencies >> - but >> it seems to me this is likely some kind of error - I can't think of a >> reason why >> they would need to be different! >> > for some of those additional dependencies they just came from trying to > start them within a clean Apache Felix installation. > > >> This would shrink the source footprint and make future maintenance easier >> (only >> need to update things in one place). >> >> Is there a reason to keep the separate OSGi source pom structures, that I'm >> missing? What do others think of this proposal? >> > I completely agree, +1. > Tommaso > > [1] : http://markmail.org/message/4gtj6iwvjg3a6cvw > > >> -Marshall >>
