From user-return-7846-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@uima.apache.org Wed Jan 10 17:13:06 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01E2118072F for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:13:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id E6383160C23; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:13:05 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 34257160C2E for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:13:05 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 61878 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jan 2018 16:12:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@uima.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@uima.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@uima.apache.org Received: (qmail 61867 invoked by uid 99); 10 Jan 2018 16:12:59 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:12:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 89663C15BE for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:12:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HomJw78bMk16 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gateway33.websitewelcome.com (gateway33.websitewelcome.com [192.185.145.9]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 45DD25F24F for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cm16.websitewelcome.com (cm16.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.19]) by gateway33.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D784190182 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:12:51 -0600 (CST) Received: from gator3253.hostgator.com ([198.57.247.217]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id ZIzieXjkpODN4ZIzjeWfFR; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:12:51 -0600 Received: from [129.34.20.19] (port=57431 helo=[9.2.54.253]) by gator3253.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eZIzi-000SiY-JX for user@uima.apache.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:12:50 -0600 Subject: Re: Parameters for PEAR To: user@uima.apache.org References: <82c52ea4-55e4-a6f6-c2e3-807e19d46d67@averbis.com> <20a30164-d1e4-faa2-529f-32037edd4c3a@averbis.com> <70813fd5-f487-d466-e19c-4093f3fb6bd7@averbis.com> <6eb3b658-f65d-31c5-786e-9b0139b24ab5@averbis.com> From: Marshall Schor Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:12:48 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6eb3b658-f65d-31c5-786e-9b0139b24ab5@averbis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator3253.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - uima.apache.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - schor.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 129.34.20.19 X-Source-L: No X-Exim-ID: 1eZIzi-000SiY-JX X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: ([9.2.54.253]) [129.34.20.19]:57431 X-Source-Auth: msa+schor.com X-Email-Count: 1 X-Source-Cap: bWlzY2hvcjttaXNjaG9yO2dhdG9yMzI1My5ob3N0Z2F0b3IuY29t X-Local-Domain: yes 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 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