[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-857?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12675288#action_12675288
]
Thilo Goetz commented on UIMA-857:
----------------------------------
Let's not revisit the version-numbers-in-jar-names issue. Although I'm not of
Adam's opinion, we have taken that decision in the past, and I don't think the
world has changed enough to make us revisit that decision now.
On the UIMA_JARPATH: if you do this as an add-on that doesn't affect the core,
I won't -1 it. UIMA is a library and as such should mess with class loading as
little as possible. I never use the scripts that come with UIMA, so I don't
know how big the pain is. Can't you just handle this on the scripting side?
> Change startup of framework to support versioned Jars and simplified classpath
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: UIMA-857
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-857
> Project: UIMA
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Build, Packaging and Test
> Reporter: Marshall Schor
> Priority: Minor
>
> Our approach to the framework classpath is to (a) strip version info from our
> Jar names, and (b) have a setUimaClassPath script that adds lots of these
> (unversioned) jars to the classpath.
> Other systems use a different approach - usually putting all the jars that
> should be in the classpath into a directory, and then having a small wrapper
> jar (with an unversioned name) that adds all the jars it finds in this dir to
> the classpath. (See for instance, ActiveMQ startup, or the way things like
> Tomcat work). Change UIMA to use this approach. (Not for 2.2.2, but for
> following release, perhaps).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
