uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lev Kozakov" <lev.koza...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Pear installer API
Date Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:09:06 GMT
On 12/1/06, Adam Lally <alally@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> On 12/1/06, Michael Baessler <mba@michael-baessler.de> wrote:
> > OK, thanks for the responses. I changed the classnames to
> > PackageInstaller and PackageInstallerException.
> > Have a separate exception for verification error seems not necessary to
> me.
> >
> > I also removed the two method arguments localInstall and
> > installToRootDir. But we should document that to the install
> > directory the componentId of the pear file is added automatically. I
> > will work on the documentation for this.
> > Having the two method overloads (pearFile, installDirPath) and
> > (pearFile, installDirPath, verify) seems not very helpful
> > for the user/developer from my perspective. I think it is sufficient to
> > have (pearFile, installDirPath, verify).
> >
>
> +1 with the only caveat that the classes need Javadoc comments.  I
> think they should lead with something like "The main user API for
> installing pear packages" that would help the user find this class if
> they were scanning through the Javadocs looking for how to install
> pears.
>
> -Adam
>

I agree with Michael's latest suggestion regarding parameters of the
installPearPackage method. What about a separate method for
validating installed PEAR package ? Installation and validation processes
may need to be done separately (for instance, due to the time/resource
constraints). I believe, we need to provide developers with this kind of
flexibility.

I'll look at the details of the PackageInstaller implementation and send
a separate comment on that.

-- Lev

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