Tommaso Teofili wrote: > Hi Thilo > > 2010/1/28 Thilo Goetz <twgo...@gmx.de> > > >> I've been thinking about this topic myself on and off >> for a while. I think it doesn't make much sense to >> create a UIMA core OSGi bundle without OSGi-enabling >> UIMA itself. If you go the OSGi route, you want your >> annotators to be bundles as well. So you need to add >> the ability to UIMA to load annotator OSGi bundles. I >> don't think that would be too hard to do, but I'm not >> sure it can be done in ways that are completely backward >> compatible. I would personally love to see OSGi bundles >> replace our pear format. >> >> Anyway, these are just my thoughts. If there is >> interest in really OSGiifying UIMA, that's something >> I'd be interested in contributing to. >> >> --Thilo >> >> > > I agree with your points indeed, in my opinion making all UIMA components > OSGI bundles would be a real plus in the means of standards, distribution, > interoperabilty and more. On the contrary it might be not so good to have > this change for deploying > stuff in a non-OSGI environment so we should think about having alternative > "packagings" for (backward) compatibility (for example using maven profiles, > but it's just the first thing that comes to my mind). > More over it could perhaps bring one more dependency (Felix?) inside UIMA so > it would be another drawback. >
We are already using Felix to build all of our Eclipse plugins, and other OSGi components. > An alternative would be having a UIMA OSGIfier for each of the UIMA base > components but I don't like the idea very much and it could be a long way > ... > Thanks Thilo, I am interested in this OSGIfication, what do others think > about it? > I'm somewhat interested, but don't really understand the motivations/goals, and the "proposal" in enough detail to have a better opinion. It would help me to have a wiki page describing this (any volunteers)? -Marshall > Cheers, > Tommaso > >
