[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2978?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13678526#comment-13678526
 ] 

Marshall Schor edited comment on UIMA-2978 at 10/12/16 9:45 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------

ConfigurableDataResourceSpecifier adds the ResourceMetaData, but it also adds 
the DataResource. What I'd like to have (any probably the issue should be 
renamed accordingly) is a ConfigurableResourceSpecifier (without data).

I marked it as a bug, because the Resource interface specifies a getMetaData() 
method, so one should be able to assume (at least I did) that this should 
always filled by any specifier. Also, storing the configuration settings of a 
resource in the meta data should probably be preferred over having a second, 
less expressive parameter specification mechanism. Following that train of 
through one should probably be able to assume that any Resource is 
"configurable" and that a "ConfigurableResourceSpecified" wouldn't even be 
required as configurability should already be provided by "ResourceSpecifier".

It's not release critical, but I thinks its major enough to think seriously 
about it (and it's the default). If there was a "normal", I'd have marked it as 
that, but the next lower level is "minor", which I think doesn't do it justice 
either.



was (Author: rec):
ConfigurableDataResourceSpecifier adds the ResourceMetaData, but it also adds 
the DataResource. What I'd like to have (any probably the issue should be 
renamed accordingly) is a ConfigurableResourceSpecifier (without data).

I marked it as a bug, because the Resource interface specifies a getMetaData() 
method, so one should be able to assume (at least I did) that this should 
always filled by any specifier. Also, storing the configuration settings of a 
resource in the meta data should probably be preferred over having a second, 
less expressive parameter specification mechanism. Following that train of 
through one should probably be able to assume that any Resource is 
"configurable" and that a "ConfigurableResourceSpecified" wouldn't even be 
required as configurability should already be provided by "ResourceSpecifier".

It's not release critical, but I thinks its major enough to thing seriously 
about it (and it's the default). If there was a "normal", I'd have marked it as 
that, but the next lower level is "minor", which I think doesn't do it justice 
either.


> CustomResourceSpecifier has no support for resource meta data
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: UIMA-2978
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2978
>             Project: UIMA
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Core Java Framework
>            Reporter: Richard Eckart de Castilho
>              Labels: Resources
>
> The CustomResourceSpecifier provides a way of defining new custom types of 
> Resources (e.g. *not* DataResources) which can be acquired via the 
> ResourceManager. 
> The CustomResourceSpecifier does not support the usual ResourceMetaData, 
> which includes support for the typical UIMA parameter configuration. It 
> supports only single-valued String parameters.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to