Actually I removed it deliberately as the removeAnalysisEngines method
returns a void so I didn't see how it could respond that the disable should
become terminate ... unlike the other "over-riding" method continueOnFailure
which returns a boolean. But then I noticed that the Javadocs for the
FlowController Interface actually suggests throwing an exception:
Also the FlowController may throw an Exception if it determines that it does
not make sense for the flow to continue in the absence of the removed
Analysis Engines (see
AnalysisEngineProcessException.FLOW_CANNOT_CONTINUE_AFTER_REMOVE.
So in my last patch I suggested:
Note that when disabling, the framework asks the flow controller to
remove the delegate from the flow,
but if the flow controller cannot reasonably operate without this
component
it can convert the action to 'terminate' by throwing an exception.
Perhaps we could also refer to the appropriate Javadocs.
- Burn
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Eddie Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The documentation fixes include changing what happens when a "disable"
> > action occurs. It use to say that
> > ...
> >
> > When disabling, the framework asks the flow controller to remove the
> > delegate from the flow; the flow controller may respond to the
> framework that it cannot
> > reasonably operate without this component, in which case
> > the framework will convert the "disable" into a "terminate".
> >
> > ...
> >
> > This was removed. It seems to me that this was a good design. I think
> > this is a case where the documentation is being made to match the
> > implementation, when, perhaps, we should be making the implementation
> > match the documentation, or at least, leaving the documentation, as it
> > was, but perhaps including a <not-yet-implemented> flag.
> >
> > -Marshall
> >
>
> Sorry, the paragraph removed is good and does reflect the
> implementation. Burn had removed it, probably by accident, and I had
> meant to add it back. Good catch.
>
> Eddie
>
