On 1/8/07, Adam Lally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thilo mentioned a very similar idea I think. This does solve the
issue of the "base CAS" with all its unsupported operations. However
it has the drawback of not really matching the names that the UIMA
specification proposal uses. The spec says that CASes are what's
passed between analytics and that CASes contain views. We'd still be
calling a "CAS" what the spec calls a "View". That just makes me
nervous about rushing to implement this.
Actually, forgetting about the spec for a second, what do we say in
our documentation is the thing that carries the analysis data between
annotators? If we still say that's called a "CAS", and that the thing
that's serialized and sent between remote annotators is still a "CAS",
then this just doesn't seem consistent with this suggested naming of
interfaces.
There seems to be agreement in the behavior, just a problem with naming?
Why can't the object delivered to analytics be called a CAS, and CasView
be derived from CAS? Backward compatibility will required a migration step
that renames the local name receiving the CAS in the method signature
and recreates the local name as a CasView with a new line of code.
Eddie
