did you get an answer?
Am 10.01.2018 um 17:12 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> I'm pinging some people who might know something about LanguageWare's use of
> this feature. -Marshall
> On 1/10/2018 6:07 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Am 10.01.2018 um 10:57 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>>>> On 16.12.2017, at 13:48, Peter Klügl <peter.klu...@averbis.com> 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 . The I realized it is this one .
>>> Looking at where the parameters of the PearSpecifier are used: apparently
>>> 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
>>> as all? Or maybe they are used via some inherited methods...?
>>> It sounds reasonable to me that these parameters are forwarded to the
>>> component in the PEAR - the question I am asking myself is though: why
>>> this already happen and (maybe) what else where these PearSpecifier
>>> 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.
>>> -- Richard
R&D Text Mining/Machine Learning
Tennenbacher Str. 11
Fon: +49 761 708 394 0
Fax: +49 761 708 394 10
Headquarters: Freiburg im Breisgau
Register Court: Amtsgericht Freiburg im Breisgau, HRB 701080
Managing Directors: Dr. med. Philipp Daumke, Dr. Kornél Markó