uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pascal Coupet" <pascal.cou...@temis.com>
Subject RE: Writing something about the Sandbox
Date Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:49:38 GMT

Hi Guys,

I'm following since a while the mailing list and I'm impressed by your
pace of work! This is my first contribution. Just some thoughts... 

It seems to me that the project can contains 3 levels of codes. The
framework itself, of course, which is the main part, some directly
related subprojects which are important but not mandatory to use the
framework and small contributions in the spirit of a sandbox.

One of the key requirements for a framework in my opinion is to provide
a great compatibility across releases. A good way to enforce this is to
avoid packing with it all needed tools because compatibility problems
may show up late in the development cycle or not show up at all.  

Subprojects are strongly related to the framework but can evolve at a
different pace and be handled by different people. They are not
mandatory to use the framework. Apache HTTP has by example a lot of
modules for this. 
We can imagine a lot of subprojects like tools (CPE GUI), tutorials,
sources, annotators, consumers, Connector for non Java objects (Perl
annotators or sources ...)...  

The sandbox is where I can upload some interesting code without a
quality level and support. It's a nice place to get a starting point for
some developments that may at some point end into the product or branch
into another project. 

Now if I take my user hat, I really dislike having to download several
files and do some configuration to test an open source project! So it
makes a lot of sense to have a binary distribution including the
framework and at least a reasonable set of sub-projects providing me the
capability to start interesting stuff out of the box. This split should
be clear in the files organization so it's easy by example to repackage
just the framework. I don't feel that the sandbox part should be part of
the default distribution. 

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: lally.adam@gmail.com [mailto:lally.adam@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Adam Lally
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 1:42 PM
To: uima-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Writing something about the Sandbox

On 2/1/07, Thilo Goetz <twgoetz@gmx.de> wrote:
> Here's what the Lucene folks say about their sandbox:
>
> "Lucene project also contains a workspace, Lucene Sandbox, that is
open
> to all Lucene committers, as well as a few other developers. The
purpose
> of the Sandbox is to host various third party contributions, and to
> serve as a place to try out new ideas and prepare them for inclusion
> into the core Lucene distribution.
> Users are free to experiment with the components developed in the
> Sandbox, but Sandbox components will not necessarily be maintained,
> particularly in their current state."
>
> The Lucene sandbox is part of every Lucene release, it just comes with
> this disclaimer.  Since we've been modeling our sandbox on theirs,
this
> is what we're aiming for.  I don't think we should add the sandbox to
> the first release, but after that, why not.
>


I did grab the lucene distribution and I do see you are right, there
is a contrib folder with the sandbox components.  (The quote you
posted, to me, doesn't imply that, but I see it's the case.)

However, does this always contain ALL sandbox compoments?  I see that
there are some folders in their sandbox SVN that are not in the
contrib directory of the Lucene 2.0.0 release (e.g., db, gdata-server,
javascript).

So perhaps there is after all a case-by-case decision made on each
sandbox component deciding when it is ready to be released?

-Adam

Mime
View raw message