> > 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
This seems more to be about "What do users really want?", thus I am going to comment on this, even if I am not a developer. I fully agree with Michael. I would really like to see a pear runtime to be build into UIMA. I know that there are many people (especially in the academic world), who just want to use components packaged by others as easily as possible. -Torsten
