[
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)
