uima-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marshall Schor <...@schor.com>
Subject Re: Parameters for PEAR
Date Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:12:48 GMT
I'm pinging some people who might know something about LanguageWare's use of
this feature. -Marshall

On 1/10/2018 6:07 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
> Am 10.01.2018 um 10:57 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>>> On 16.12.2017, at 13:48, Peter Klügl <peter.kluegl@averbis.com> wrote:
>>>> Is it a problem for us to simply implement Matthias's solution: Make use
>>>> of the parameters in the PearSpecifier and just set them in the wrapped
>>>> analysis engine description if they are compatible?
>>> Are there any opinions on this?
>> First, I was a bit confused and though the "PearSpecifier" would be
>> this guy here [1]. The I realized it is this one [2].
>> Looking at where the parameters of the PearSpecifier are used: apparently the
>> setParameter and getParameter are only ever called directly in unit tests.
>> Does it mean that the frameworks so far does not make any use of these parameter
>> as all? Or maybe they are used via some inherited methods...?
>> It sounds reasonable to me that these parameters are forwarded to the top-level
>> component in the PEAR - the question I am asking myself is though: why doesn't
>> this already happen and (maybe) what else where these PearSpecifier parameters
>> intended to do then?
> Yes, these are exactly the questions we had :-)
> I rather wanted to ask twice before I open an issue or implement
> something. Could always be that I missed something. Initially, I thought
> that the IBM guys (LanguageWare) made massive use of the PEAR concept
> and they surely had some possibility to configure their PEARs.
> Best,
> Peter
>> Cheers,
>> -- Richard
>> [1] http://uima.apache.org/d/uimaj-current/references.html#ugr.ref.pear.installation_descriptor
>> [2] http://uima.apache.org/d/uimaj-current/references.html#ugr.ref.pear.specifier

View raw message