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 16:48:33 GMT
On 12/1/06, Michael Baessler <mba@michael-baessler.de> wrote:
>
> Lev Kozakov wrote:
> > 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.
> I don't see that we need a separate method for installation
> verification. If an application
> want to do the verification before using the component they have to wait
> until is has finished.
> So they don't want to call a separate method. And if the installation
> fails, the verification is not started.
> So I don't understand why we need a separate method.
>
> -- Michael
>
>
I believe, verification of installed PEARs should be available independently
of
installation (as well as an installation option).
1st use case may be when several PEARs are installed in the system before
the app. started, and the app. needs to check that the PEARs are still OK
before running analysis pipe.
2nd use case may be when PEARs were installed and verified in one
environment
(e.g. Eclipse), but need to be re-verified in another environment (e.g.
standalone
GUI app.).
General argument: wouldn't it be more user friendly to provide separate
verification
method, if we can do it for almost free?

-- Lev

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