On 9/25/2014 3:55 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: > I think that the jackson-core jar should not be forced upon consumers of the > uimaj-core jar and neither users should be forced to resort to exclusions to > get rid of it. Hence, I suggested to move it to a separate module. +1, this is now done. The uimaj-core has no dependency on jackson-core. > > I think it's fine for developers to get the jackson-core jar via the normal > dependency management. > > If we want to make the JSON a truly optional part of the build, then its > <module> declaration in the UIMA SDK parent pom can be moved to a profile. > If the profile is activated, it is part of the build, otherwise no > Whether we enable or disable the profile by default, I don't care. We should > enable it for our own releases and on Jenkins. Having it enabled by default > would make it more convenient for us. Downstream consumers that do not have > the jackson-core jar in their repositories could conveniently disable the > profile (e.g. mvn -P!enable-json-support clean install) > > Sounds good? + 1. I'll change it to what you suggest, and thank you for the suggestions!
-Marshall > > Cheers, > > -- Richard > > On 25.09.2014, at 21:48, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>> > >
