uima-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shahim Essaid <sha...@essaid.com>
Subject Re: Obtaining the AnalysisEngine object from a primitive analysis component
Date Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:35:09 GMT
I looked a little closer at the code and it appears that this is not
possible in the current implementation.

So a related question would be the following. Is there any harm in
passing _and holding_ a reference from parent resources to child
resources, and then eventually to an analysis component? This could be
done in the initialization map and then nullified in the destroy call.
 I can easily add this to the code but I am not sure about any
consequences of doing this. Would this cause any memory leaks or any
other issues? Is the destroy method call guaranteed if any exceptions
are thrown? I'm looking through the code to find these answers but a
confirmation from the UIMA developers would be very appreciated.

Best,
Shahim

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Shahim Essaid <shahim@essaid.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a use case where I would like be able to get the AnalysisEngine
> object from an AnalysisComponent object at runtime in order to get to
> the:
>
>   private ResourceCreationSpecifier mDescription; (or the aggregate's
> corresponding field.)
>
> in the PrimitiveAnalysisEngine_impl class.
>
> This will help my use case in two different ways. First, it will give
> me a single unique object for the current engine regardless how many
> component instances are created from my class and the object will be
> specific to the current engine in case my component class is
> instantiated in multiple engines. Second, I can get full access to the
> specifier that was used to create the engine.
>
> Is this possible?  I tried to look through the various object
> references while debugging but couldn't figure out how to get to the
> analysis engine object. I was able to get hold of the
> ConfigurationManager object for the engine (which appears to be a
> single object per engine) but not the engine object itself. I know I
> can coordinate this from the application side but I would like to be
> able to do this by simply including the component in an engine without
> any other changes.
>
> Thanks,
> Shahim

Mime
View raw message