[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2874?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13653260#comment-13653260
]
Richard Eckart de Castilho commented on UIMA-2874:
--------------------------------------------------
[~schor]:
{quote}
Thanks for the feedback; I'm on the fence here, and could go either way...
I had trouble seeing what the value of having the Serialization class with
static methods, which took a CAS as an argument, versus having the method on the
CAS...
The convenience I can see is that the rate of change to the CAS API (a more
widely used API) would be smaller;
on the other hand, if you have a cas, it seems slightly less convenient to write
Serialization.<name-of-serializer>(aCas, maybe-some-other-parameters), versus
aCas.<name-of-serializer>(maybe-some-other-parameters)
I also feel the CAS is already a very big class, so am slightly in favor of
things that reduce it :-) .
I'm guessing there are other considerations I haven't thought of - Other
opinions / rationalizations for doing it one way or the other?
-Marshall
{quote}
> binary compression APIs in CAS
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: UIMA-2874
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2874
> Project: UIMA
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core Java Framework
> Reporter: Marshall Schor
> Assignee: Marshall Schor
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.4.1SDK
>
>
> Rationalize the CASImpl binary compression APIs; add to the CAS Apis.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
