Hi,
Good points, Richard. I had not thought deeply about this.
The POM for this is borrowing the versions and the parent pom from the
uimaj-parent, so it would be versioned with that.
Thinking out loud:
If we moved it to be under uimaj node in svn, but didn't include it as a
<module>, it could at least have its parent-pom relative path set reasonably.
If we also included it as a <module> in the main uimaj code, and included it
(but not its dependency - jackson-core) in the binary build for uimaj, then it
would automatically build and get released with uimaj, but users would need to
separately download jackson-core jar (or use maven, etc.).
-- This would require "developers" or "build-from-source" people to let
maven get the jackson-core jar into their maven repo, though, in order to
"build".
I think things would go smoother, if it was part of uimaj, except for having
developers / build-from-source people have to get the jackson-core jar.
Or, do you think it is OK to have the binary "convenience" build also include
the jackson-core jar? (It's Apache v2 licensed). In which case the convenience
build is even more convenient :-) And I could get rid some some boilerplate
junk in the other project needed for managing it as a separate build.
WDYT?
-Marshall
On 9/25/2014 2:47 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> On 25.09.2014, at 20:27, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> + <para>Starting with version 2.6.1, JSON style serialization for CASs
>> and UIMA descriptions is supported via an
>> + optional add-on, <code>uimaj-json</code>.
> I noticed that you have moved the JSON code to the addons now. Since we have
> developed a habit of no longer releasing the addons, I wonder if locating the
> new module next to the other UIMAJ SDK modules. When I spoke out in favor of
> having JSON support in its own module, I was indeed thinking of leaving it as
> a separate module in the SDK and version it along with the other SDK modules.
>
> Are you planning on moving it to the SDK once read support has been added or
> were you thinking of leaving it in the addons?
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Richard
>
