Am 09.08.2013 um 15:49 schrieb Marshall Schor <[email protected]>: > On 8/9/2013 9:18 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: >> Actually, I think that in is questionable whether the type should be >> extensible in either of the two fashions. Anybody who wants to store >> additional meta data in a CAS could create a custom type instead of >> modifying DocumentAnnotation either through the officially documented was, >> through type merging, or through derivation. >> >> Do you suggest that only derivation should be prohibited, but type merging >> should be allowed, possibly even encouraged? > I think it should be discouraged, but want to have our user community to > continue to be happy with existing deployments (UIMA is used quite widely, > around the world, I believe). > > So I don't want to introduce a change that likely would result in breaking > many > existing applications.
That's why I tagged this issue with the "incompatible" version. I understood your previous comments such as that you suggested to make the DocumentAnnotation at least feature-final. That is already an incompatible change which would break at least Ruta and DKPro Core. For the sake of progress, well planned incompatibility is not necessarily a bad thing, is it? -- Richard
