Thanks Richard, I will integrate the uimaFIT 3.0.0 branch and see what happens.
Cheers, Mario > On 2 Oct 2018, at 12:00 , Richard Eckart de Castilho <[email protected]> wrote: > > uimaFIT v3 is on my todo list for some time already. A few > weeks ago, I almost announced a vote for a release candidate, > but then Apache policy regarding checksums changed, mandating > a switch to SHA 256/512, so I dropped the RC again. > > We are now about to release a new version of the UIMA parent > POM which will produce SHA 512 checksums for our artifacts, > then I'll go back to running the uimaFIT v2 and v3 releases. > > There are no more significant changes scheduled for uimaFIT > 2.5.0 and 3.0.0 - it's basically just doing the release now. > > If you are brave enough to use unreleased version, you could > just check out the uimaFIT 3.0.x branch [1] temporarily and > build the SNAPSHOTs locally. > > As far as I understood, the Ruta v3 release is basically waiting > for the uimaFIT 3.0.0 release - but I don't know anything more > about if/how many changes in addition to the uimaFIT v3 release > are necessary to perform in Ruta before v3 can be released. > > Cheers, > > -- Richard > > [1] https://github.com/apache/uima-uimafit/tree/3.0.x > >> On 2. Oct 2018, at 09:49, Mario Juric <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Peter & Richard, >> >> We are working on migrating to UIMA 3, but we are getting an awful many >> runtime incompatibility complaints from DKPro and Ruta components in the >> form of >> >> "JCas Class X, loaded from Y.jar, is missing required constructor; likely >> cause is wrong version (UIMA version 3 or later JCas required)." >> >> It kinda puts migration on hold for us unless there is a workaround. Do you >> have any roadmap for migrating to UIMA 3? >> >> Cheers, >> Mario >
