The problems are gone... I should learn how to use uimaFIT correctly. Oh dear, so much trouble for nothing...
On the other hand, this will not solve my problems when I enforce the usage of Ruta as a java library. However, I think I can take care of the upcoming problems on the Ruta side of the code, e.g., with the factory you mentioned. Thanks Richard :-) Best, Peter Am 25.08.2015 um 11:47 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho: > On 25.08.2015, at 11:32, Peter Klügl <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> How about you rewrite your test using createEngineDescription() and either >>> SimplePipeline or you create an AAE from your individual engines, >>> instantiate then and call process() on it once? >> I added an alternative without uimaFIT where I use xml descriptors. >> Here, the JCas cover class instances remain. >> >> It's not about that the tests fail. The uimaFIT test also is fulfilled >> since Ruta regenerates the information anyway right now. This is rather >> a requirement for future development of Ruta. >> >> I could restrict the usage of Ruta with a policy like "If you use Ruta >> with uimaFIT, then you have to create the CAS also with uimaFIT or with >> the resource manager of the uimaFIT analysis engine..., or it will get >> really slow when you use it as a java library or you use several >> separate Ruta analysis engines in one pipeline." >> >> If there are other options, I really want to avoid that. I rather prefer >> to reduce restrictions like getting rid of the type priorities. > Using createEngine in a row is imho a really bad habit. Users should > use createEngineDescription as long as possible and either leave it > to a pipeline (SimplePipeline or CpePipeline) to instantiate the engines, > or do only a single createEngine that instantiates a whole aggregate and > call process once. > > So if you use the "recommended" way with > > engine = createEngine( > createEngineDescription( > createEngineDescription(AE1.class,...), > createEngineDescription(AE2.class,...), > createEngineDescription(AE3.class,...)); > > engine.process(cas); > > do you then still have the problem? > > Cheers, > > -- Richard
