Am 10.01.2014 16:37, schrieb Marshall Schor: > + 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].
Not exactly. I would categorize the ruta "ecosystem" as a rule-based analysis engine with additional eclipse-based tooling for developing those rules (the workbench). We apply the analysis engines most of the time within the workbench, but also in plain java end applications. I also heart of people that use a plain text editor for writing their rules. Both leads to a ruta-usage like a normal java library. Anyways, I do not worry that dependecy on java 6 or 7 will cause problems as I do not know of any ruta users or customers that require java 5. It is not the first time that this topic is dicussed. If there are requirements, I supose that they would already have called our attention. Thanks, Peter > 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
