ok, I'll take a look at moving the JSON support code to a separate module. -M
On 9/19/2014 5:24 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> I share Alexandre's opinion. Having the code in a separate module would avoid
> having to deal with optional dependencies and exclusions.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
>
> On 19.09.2014, at 04:57, Alexandre Patry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> To my knowledge, the easiest way to make a dependency optional is to put the
>> code depending on it in a separate module.
>>
>> A compromise is to make the jackson dependency optional (see
>> https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-optional-and-excludes-dependencies.html).
>> This will require jackson to build the project, but it will not include it
>> in the transitional dependencies of uimaj. People needing JSON support will
>> have to declare the jackson dependency explicitly.
>>
>> Personally, I would prefer a separate module.
>>
>> Hope this help,
>>
>> Alexandre
>>
>>
>> On 14-09-18 05:06 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> The Jackson Jars are not needed (in the binary distribution), if you do not
>>> want
>>> the JSON support. So this may not be an issue for consumers of UIMA - they
>>> could just delete the Jackson Jar if they don't need it, from our
>>> "convenience"
>>> binary packaging (I would hope we wouldn't need to provide 2 binary
>>> packages -
>>> one with and one without...)
>>>
>>> But I see a possible issue for developers, etc. building from source using
>>> Eclipse or Maven; I agree it would be good to allow builds to succeed with
>>> and
>>> without the Jackson jars, with the "without" case of course not running the
>>> JSON
>>> test cases.
>>>
>>> Anyone know how to make that happen? I hope someone can think up a nice
>>> approach :-)
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>>
>>> On 9/18/2014 11:52 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have noticed that the new JSON support also introduces a new dependency
>>>> on jackson in uimaj-core.
>>>> I wonder if that is a good idea since our users might need to get extra
>>>> permission from their legal
>>>> departments to use the new library when they want to upgrade. Would it be
>>>> reasonable to maintain
>>>> the JSON support in a separate module? Given the kind of very deep
>>>> integration that the JSON
>>>> support appears to have, this might not even be easily possible.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> -- Richard
>> --
>> Alexandre Patry, Ph.D
>> Chercheur / Researcher
>> http://KeaText.com
>
>
