Mailing-List: contact opennlp-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: opennlp-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of james.kosin@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.83.175 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=G/JTw2+y6zsFGNzBwEHJnpToAGLz0C+Iywt/maCficbKZAeGOIDtBo8eSDwHEQJ8/o
         NithCSlMqmYUv23ToWBIVVLA0HarXH0y3Fqlr7fPj3WEj/NyTiOyG0CkujB2Azg3+OXG
         PFbPW5NHN2X9EVE2Msvpq/NuI+9fdIY9sFRxw=
Message-ID: <4DF6C844.4020807@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:32:36 -0400
From: James Kosin <james.kosin@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: opennlp-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Custom feature generators
References: <BANLkTi=OzSQKo5RoESt5Ug-azcwcDtc+vQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=OzSQKo5RoESt5Ug-azcwcDtc+vQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/13/2011 10:23 PM, william.colen@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently we only have implemented custom feature generators that we can
> pass from command line only for NameFinder, but it would be very nice to
> have it for all tools.
> The Thai sentence detector customization is nice and simple, but to do
> something for other languages the user would need to branch the code. We
> should allow users to pass a factory class name from command line. Maybe we
> could do it for every tool that doesn't use sequence feature generator. Also
> would be nice to save the factory class name to the model to make sure we
> are using the same feature generator during runtime and evaluation.
>
> What do you think? Maybe you have thought a better solution for that.
>
> Thanks
> William
>
William,

We discussed various options, unfortunately, most involved some security
risk for the Java engine; including allowing the saving of the actual
feature generator constructor itself to the model.  Maybe the XML option
may be a better route for the long run.  We could even save the copy of
the XML document in the model itself.  But again that opens us up for
issues if someone writes bad XML to cause issues.

Maybe, we could have the feature generator a generic class that needed a
constructor.  Then each implementing language could have a new
constructor that correctly built the feature generator.  Unfortunately,
it means a change would break any models.

We may need to re-open the issue when Jorn comes back or at least get
another discussion going so we can try and weed out the issues with the
options available.

James