The "mitigating" factor would be if we could easily imagine a significant sub-community of UIMA users appreciating these variants. In this particular case, I'm leaning toward agreeing with Richard, but am fine with having some variants if needed by Peter.
-Marshall On 8/3/2016 4:32 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: > Under that policy, should we really introduce all kinds of variants using > File, Path, and URL not rather stick to InputStream (maybe to URL which > incurs additional overhead opening/closing streams)? > > -- Richard > >> On 03.08.2016, at 22:29, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> My general feeling: anytime we make something "public" it becomes "set in >> stone". So, it is best not to make things public ahead of clear >> needs/use-cases. That way, if at some point in the future, we find we now >> have >> a clear use-case for the loadBinary kind of thing, we can implement it then, >> without any worries about backwards compatibility :-). >> >> Kind of a "lazy" API creation, I guess. >> >> -Marshall >
