I realize I left something out. For the uimaj-j (the new JCas oriented version of uima, also known as uimaj-v3), eclipse plugins depending on this should be in a separate Eclipse Composite update site.
Following the conventions in the other naming note posted to the dev list, we would have: eclipseUpdateSite <- composite site uimaj uima-as ruta and eclipseUpdateSite-j uimaj-j uima-as-J ruta-J or something like that. -Marshall On 1/11/2018 5:11 PM, Marshall Schor wrote: > Once we release uimaj-3.0.0SDK, it will have associated eclipse plugins. > The plugins will be compatible with v3; the v2 plugins will be compatible > with v2. > > Currently, we are distinguishing projects that have a v2 and a v3 version > following the naming convention: > > v2: proj-name > v3: proj-name-v3 > > We could do this also for eclipse update sites, by having a new top-level > update > site. > Currently: > consolidated top level: www.apache.org/dist/uima/eclipse-update-site > subsites for /uimaj/, /ruta/, /uima-as/, and /uimaj-v3-pre-production/ > > Proposed: > subsites: /uimaj, /ruta/, /uima-as/, > /uimaj-v3/, /ruta-v3/, /uima-as-v3/ > (over time, these three components will have both v2 and v3 > versions) > > > Alternatively, we could just have the sites all together. The disadvantage is > that it makes it harder (more error prone) when users are not ready to switch > to > v3, because the "default" in eclipse is to show only the most recent version. > Doing it this way makes it more explicit to users. > > I think we will have for some time users on both the v2 and v3 platforms. > > WDYT? > > -Marshall >
