On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:45 AM, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marshall Schor wrote: >> One use case: With JCas it is possible to add fields to the cover class >> (thus, you could add a hashmap object, for instance); this is described in >> the documentation for JCas. Those field values are only preserved for >> different iterations if the JCas instance is kept. >> -Marshall > > I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.
Hmmm.. then what was the remainder of your email for? ;) >The JCas cache is an > "optimization" (or not), and it shouldn't be relied upon for program > correctness - nor should our documentation suggest that it should. > > Now that the JCas cache is configurable, annotators that rely on the > JCas cache for correctness will no longer work in UIMA instances > configured not to use the cache. > I agree with Thilo, but would go even further and state that annotators that rely on sharing data in the JCas object are *already* broken, since two annotators could only share data in this way if they are co-located, not if they are deployed remotely. Annotators shouldn't break if deployed remotely. I think our documentation should actively discourage doing this, not encourage it. -Adam
