On 12/5/2011 5:35 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote: > I tested the eclipse update site and works. > > But one thing which seems a bit strange to me is > the names of the two projects: > - UIMA Runtime > - UIMA tools (includes Runtime) > > When I want to install the tools it doesn't really matter if > I select the "UIMA Runtime" one or not, because the dependency > system will get it right for me. > > Shouldn't we rename it to "UIMA Tools" ?
The reason it is named with (includes Runtime) is to create an expectation that the user just has to check this box. If we left off this phrase, users would likely wonder if they had to also check the Runtime. However, as you've noticed, it "just works" - whether or not the user checks UIMA Runtime, so in some sense, it doesn't really matter - other than to reduce some potential uncertainty in some users. I guess I'd like to keep it as it is, for that reason. > > I also get a warning about unsigned content, maybe there a way to > sign it? I once looked into signing. I would certainly like to get this "signed", somehow. I will open up a topic about this on release-discuss, as this is an Apache-wide issue. Here's what I remember: 1) The Jar signing being checked for by Eclipse is not the same as the PGP key signing we use at Apache, and requires some kind of a "certificate" issued by a recognized certifying organization (for a fee). There has been some discussion previously at Apache about getting such a certificate for Apache projects to use, but I don't think it has been done, and I don't think an effective way has been worked out for projects to "share" such a certificate. 2) At one point, there was a thread which said that the way the signed Jars were used in Eclipse caused (somewhat significant??) performance issues. This may now be no longer true.... -Marshall
