+1 to move to Java 6. We sometimes use Ruta without the Eclipse
workbench in applications. Java 7 would also be fine, however, I think
we should not move to Java 8 until required.
-- Martin
+ 1 to move to Java 6 or Java 7 (or Java 8, GA due in mid-March).
Here's my rationale (which will probably expose some of my ignorance about the
Ruta details :-) ):
Ruta is an Eclispe workbench. This means that the way you use it is to run
Eclipse, and then Ruta runs "within it". [If Ruta is a thing which is used via
being embedded into other systems, then the argument doesn't apply].
So, forcing a dependency on Java 7 or 8 means you have to run just one app,
namely, Eclipse, on that Java. And Eclipse runs fine on Java 8 (candidates)
already :-).
So it's unlikely that will be much of an issue for your customers.
This is in contrast to other deployments of UIMA things, where they're more
likely (possibly) integrated into other systems, and those systems would need (a
lot of testing- investment) to move to more recent versions of Java.
-Marshall
On 1/10/2014 7:04 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
I know we already have talked about the strategy of the required java
version, but I think I have seen that ducc depends on java 6.
I would like to move ruta also to java 6 since I could really need some
methods only available in java 6.
Opinions?
Peter
Am 10.01.2014 12:29, schrieb Peter Klügl:
Btw, Martin volunteered as release manager for the upcoming ruta release
if nobody objects.
Peter
Am 07.01.2014 19:08, schrieb Martin Toepfer:
+1 for "2.2.0" because there will be several improvements in the next
release.
Martin
+1 for 2nd digit. Last digit be minor features and bug fixes.
I usually update the 2nd digit by default when I do
releases and reserve the last digit for shoving in intermediate
maintenance revisions of the last release.
-- Richard
On 07.01.2014, at 13:17, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 to having the 2nd digit increment if there are more than minor
changes,
especially if some of those changes might require some user action.
-Marshall
On 1/7/2014 5:13 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
Hi,
I wonder if the next version should be 2.2.0 instead of 2.1.1 since
the
new import syntax and functionality is not a small change and the
improvements in UIMA-2332 will maybe have a obvious impact for the
users.
Any opinions?
Peter
--
MSc. Martin Toepfer Raum: B008
Universität Würzburg Tel.: +49-(0)931-31-81856
Am Hubland Fax.: -
97074 Würzburg mail: [email protected]
www: http://www.is.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/mitarbeiter/toepfer/
