Michael Baessler wrote:
Tong Fin wrote:
My thinking is that "pear runtime" is more closer to the " tooling"
than the
"framework". It is hard to draw the boundary. Also, there are many
runtimes
that UIMA can/may support.
I don't think that we should do something too specific to the "pear
runtime".
If I look from a UIMA users perspective I see that there is something
that is called pear to package annotators and UIMA components but
there is no way to easy run these packaged components in the UIMA
runtime later. So that's why I think the core framework should have
a pear runtime integration and API to run these pear packages out of the
box without doing anything manually after the pear installation.
-- Michael
+1
We promote the pear format as the UIMA packaging format, but make it
hard on the user to run pears. Installing and running pears is just too
complicated, while creating them is easy. That's the mismatch we should
address.
--Thilo
