uima-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eddie Epstein <eaepst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Error when trying to drop CAS with FlowController
Date Mon, 07 Sep 2015 20:02:50 GMT
One way to allow a delegate to terminate subsequent flow of a primary CAS
would be for the built-in UIMA flow controller to assign FinalStep() to
CASes
containing some "drop-cas-mark".

Assuming your OUTER_AAE is not using a custom flow controller, this would
allow
the OUTER_AAE to respect a mark set by the delegate INNER_AAE without
changing
any code in the OUTER.

The next problem would be establishing a convention for the drop-cas-mark.


On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho <rec@apache.org>
wrote:

> I don't think that cas.deleteView() would be a clean solution unless UIMA
> would be default drop any CAS that has its only remaining view removed.
>
> Dropping the whole unit-of-work (the CAS) instead of stripping its content
> appear to me a cleaner solution.
>
> -- Richard
>
> On 07.09.2015, at 17:45, Eddie Epstein <eaepstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There was a Jira opened 7 years ago to support a cas.deleteView() method,
> > but it has been ignored due to lack of interest.
> > See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-830
> >
> > Eddie
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Zesch, Torsten <
> torsten.zesch@uni-due.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Only if it could completely empty the CAS including the document text,
> but
> >> as far as I know the document text cannot be changed once it is set.
> >>
> >> Am 07/09/15 17:14 schrieb "Eddie Epstein" unter <eaepstein@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> Can the filter in the INNER_AAE modify such CASes, perhaps
> >>> by deleting data, that would result in the existing consumer
> >>> effectively ignoring them?
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Zesch, Torsten <
> torsten.zesch@uni-due.de
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> The consumer does not have to be modified if the flow controller
> >>>>> drops CASes marked to be ignored.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sounds like the issue in this case is that the consumer is in the
> >>>>> OUTER_AAE, and there is a desire not to have any components
> >>>>> in the OUTER_AAE be aware of the filtering operation.
> >>>>> Is this right?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes exactly.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Torsten
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message