Hi,
Am 10.01.2018 um 10:57 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho: >> On 16.12.2017, at 13:48, Peter Klügl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Is it a problem for us to simply implement Matthias's solution: Make use >>> of the parameters in the PearSpecifier and just set them in the wrapped >>> analysis engine description if they are compatible? >>> >> Are there any opinions on this? > First, I was a bit confused and though the "PearSpecifier" would be > this guy here [1]. The I realized it is this one [2]. > > Looking at where the parameters of the PearSpecifier are used: apparently the > setParameter and getParameter are only ever called directly in unit tests. > > Does it mean that the frameworks so far does not make any use of these > parameter > as all? Or maybe they are used via some inherited methods...? > > It sounds reasonable to me that these parameters are forwarded to the > top-level > component in the PEAR - the question I am asking myself is though: why doesn't > this already happen and (maybe) what else where these PearSpecifier parameters > intended to do then? Yes, these are exactly the questions we had :-) I rather wanted to ask twice before I open an issue or implement something. Could always be that I missed something. Initially, I thought that the IBM guys (LanguageWare) made massive use of the PEAR concept and they surely had some possibility to configure their PEARs. Best, Peter > Cheers, > > -- Richard > > [1] > http://uima.apache.org/d/uimaj-current/references.html#ugr.ref.pear.installation_descriptor > [2] > http://uima.apache.org/d/uimaj-current/references.html#ugr.ref.pear.specifier -- Peter Klügl R&D Text Mining/Machine Learning Averbis GmbH Tennenbacher Str. 11 79106 Freiburg Germany Fon: +49 761 708 394 0 Fax: +49 761 708 394 10 Email: [email protected] Web: https://averbis.com Headquarters: Freiburg im Breisgau Register Court: Amtsgericht Freiburg im Breisgau, HRB 701080 Managing Directors: Dr. med. Philipp Daumke, Dr. Kornél Markó
