Re: releasing the Cas Editor - with or without some pre-packaged annotators.
I suspect that Joern would be willing to be the "release manager" for
this :-). He may even be willing to bundle some of the more "stable"
sandbox components with it, but certainly not uima-as (uima-ee), which
is not ready.
The pragmatic, least - work approach would be to pick those sandbox
projects that would be ready now, and do one "release" packaging that
included the Cas Editor. However, I don't think that's the "clearest"
approach for our users. I think they might like to see bundles arranged
by topics - and so might like a bundle of annotators, and might
separately like the Cas Editor.
So - my preference for now would be to keep the Cas Editor as a
separately packaged thing coming from the project. If we get additional
tools, over time, which we consider "add-ons" and not fundamentally
needed as part of the core, then perhaps we can have a tools-bundle.
To do this effectively using the Maven "way" - we might want to have
each tool (in one "project") produce one jar (maven way: each project
<=> one jar), at a particular version level. These would be available
in the maven jar repository, and maven tooling could be used to fetch
them. Maven "assemblies" could then be used to package multiples of
these into bigger packages of things. A basic idea here would be that
the version of the assembly would be on a different "schedule" than the
components. So someone downloading an assembled "bundle" would get
parts, each of which had their own version number. This is similar to
what you get with other big projects that include jars from other
sources. The parts which are stable and not changing would not have
their version numbers incremented in the assembled bundle.
-Marshall
Michael Baessler wrote:
Marshall Schor wrote:
Thilo Goetz wrote:
Hi Marshall,
as usual, my view is pretty much the exact opposite ;-)
First of all, I don't see the sense in creating yet another
category. To my mind, there's nothing wrong with having
mature components in the sandbox. The only thing I would
consider is to move some sandbox components that are really
important to people into the core.
I think people might feel that the sandbox isn't a place to get
production-quality things, and I was hoping that some of these
components were production-quality :-)
I think Thilo raised a good point here. We still have an "empty
framework" that does not provide any linguistic functionality out of
the box. So maybe we should think about moving sandbox components that
are ready to use and are important for most of the UIMA users to the
core. We could than also provide some more out of the box analytics by
combining the components.
For all the other Sandbox components that are ready to use but are not
relevant for most of the UIMA users we can consider to do a separate
release for each component. I guess the release cycles are larger for
those components so that we do not have so much Sandbox component
releases.
Opinions?
-- Michael
