ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Masanz, James J." <Masanz.Ja...@mayo.edu>
Subject RE: LVG Thread Safety
Date Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:40:35 GMT

That would be good to know.  I think a good start would be to have a comparison from one release
to the next, where when release N is built, some test is run using release N and using release
N-1.  The CPE Gui will show a breakdown of how long each annotator took in total for a set
of documents. I assume we could get that information programmatically fairly easy.

-----Original Message-----
From: AndyMC@apache.org (Andy McMurry) [mailto:mcmurry.andy@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 2:57 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: LVG Thread Safety

I wonder how much cTAKES performance changes with even minor changes to LVG. 

In principle, thread safety shouldn't change the output, but even minor updates (LVG.2014)
makes me wonder. 

Thoughts? 

On Jun 23, 2014, at 11:58 AM, "John Green" <john.travis.green@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nice!-
> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
> 
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Chen, Pei <Pei.Chen@childrens.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
> 
>> +dev@
>> Chris,
>> This awesome news.  Yes we'll be happy to try out the fix.
>> Thanks again,
>> Pei
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CTAKES-151
>> From: Lu, Chris (NIH/NLM/LHC) [C] [mailto:chlu@mail.nih.gov]
>> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 2:54 PM
>> To: Chen, Pei
>> Cc: Browne, Allen (NIH/NLM/LHC) [E]; Lu, Chris (NIH/NLM/LHC) [C]
>> Subject: RE: LVG Thread Safety
>> Hi Pei,
>> How are you doing?
>> We have evaluated your request regarding to the thread safety issue on the SPECIALIST
Lexical Tools. Bellows are the summary. Please let us know if you have any suggestions, comments,
or questions. This SCR is a major source code change and, if you like, we will send you a
nightly built version of lvg.2015 (using lvg.2014 data) in July so you can try it before the
official NLM internal release of lvg.2015 is released (in Oct.). Please let us know, Thank
you!
>> 1). Static variables
>> => Thank you (and Kim) to point out this issue. Here are how we plan to modify
"static variables" in the Java codes:
>> 1-a). Change static variables to final static variables (if applicable)
>> 1-b). Change static variables to local variables (if applicable)
>> 1-c). Keep "static String fieldSeparator_" in Lib.GlobalBehavior.java and use "synchronized"
for the associated static methods.
>> ð  There will be too many changes for Flows APIs if we decided to change it to local
variable.
>> 1-d). Keep the rest of static variables under GuiTool
>> ð  Assuming users do not use GuiTool (lgt) under multi-thread environment.
>> There are 88 files need to be modified for this software change request.
>> 2) Standardize Java package namespace convention on lvg API:
>> => There were legacy reasons that all Lvg Java codes under directory of Tools
do not use the standard Java package convention. However, we are happy to make the change
for your requests.
>> There are 11 Java files of command line tools and 43 Java files of GUI tool need
to be modified.
>> Hope this helps. Thank you!
>> Best Regards
>> -          Chris


Mime
View raw message