Mailing-List: contact uima-user-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: uima-user@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <47DAA238.80608@uni-jena.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:05:12 +0100
From: Katrin Tomanek <katrin.tomanek@uni-jena.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: uima-user@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Type Priorities
References: <47D95DBB.5050609@uni-jena.de> <47D95F6D.9030606@gmx.de>
 <47D96677.7090000@uni-jena.de> <47D9A0E7.5020903@ogren.info>
 <12012a0a0803131509r642e5ebgc41b86f08df51f26@mail.gmail.com>
 <31923CD68FF05B42B1D3AC08F2D733B503074C24@nybf01-mail01.ad.gd-ais.com>
 <47DA4EBF.2020104@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <47DA4EBF.2020104@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,
> I don't like the behavior, either.  However, type priorities were
> introduced because of user requirements.  They're certainly not
> an implementation convenience.  Quite the opposite, in fact :-)
> 
> Now if enough users speak up, maybe we can change something.
> Perhaps by default, type priorities should not be used and
> you'd need to do something special to activate them.  One
> might imagine special iterator overloads that respect type
> priorities.

yes, I think thats very a good idea.

> The problem that type priorities are trying to address is
> a valid one, IMHO.  I'm just not sure that the way we're
> tackling this is the best one.
IMHO its a little bit unintuitive that by default the subiterator uses 
the priorities in this way: I would just not have expected that when two 
types have the same spans and one has inferior priority, the subiterator 
would not return me this type.

Katrin