uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marshall Schor <...@schor.com>
Subject Re: Considering some re-org of SVN
Date Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:49:37 GMT
Adam Lally wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
>   
>> Also, if I understand you right, you're suggesting that we have just an
>> "everything" package, instead of these "add-on" packages. If we have just an
>> everything package, would we not have a base package?  That would mean that
>> people who wanted just uima base would be downloading a lot more than they
>> will use.
>>     
>
>  I was suggesting that an "everything" package might replace what you
> were suggesting as the "base + uima-as" package.  I haven't completely
> made up my mind about dropping the base-only release.  Would our users
> really be that upset about getting extra stuff they don't want?  (I
> don't think we're talking about huge amounts of stuff to download, are
> we?)
>   
I agree that simpler is better, and bundling things is simpler.  But 
(there's always one of these... ) uima-as is quite a bit "bigger" than 
the base; includes in its distribution the Spring framework, ActiveMQ, 
and Saxon (the XSLT transformer), as well as the custom code for uima-as.
> Furthermore, if we have a lot more tools under development, it may
> make sense to consider tools separate from the "base" - and at that
> point would anyone want a base-only release?
>   
I agree it's simpler / better to have most of the tools in the base - 
which is where we have them now, except for tools which are specific to 
uima-as are packaged with uima-as (this is the extension to the 
component descriptor editor to support editing deployment descriptors).
>   
>> We could, of course, have a style where the binaries would be:
>>  base
>>  base + annotators
>>  base + annotators + simple server
>>  base + uima-as
>>  base + c++
>>
>> etc., various "combinations" of the parts.  I think such a packaging would
>> get out of hand (too many variants).
>> Or, perhaps you're suggesting:
>>  base
>>  base + everything else (or a subset of everything else - e.g., uima-as, cas
>> editor, annotators, but not the simple server?)
>>
>> I think our offerings will continue to grow, and may become more diverse
>> (e.g., a sample "Type System", or corpora for training, or repository
>> functionality might be added).  So I lean toward a strategy that allows for
>> some number of "parts" as separately managed things, together with an
>> attempt to occasionally put out semi-synchronized "big" releases with all or
>> most of the parts, like the Eclipse approach.
>>
>>     
>
> I think having synchronized (why only semi?) "big" releases with all
> the parts (at least all the mature ones) would be a big improvement.
>   
Semi - meant that not all of the components might be in the big 
release.   For instance, if at some point we host test "corpora", those 
might not change very much, and not be in the release.
> As for the piecemeal releases, could these only be for minor version
> updates since the last major release?  
Yes, that was the idea.  Also would be good to allow them as initial 
releases.  So, for instance, if we had 2.2.2 out, and finally the C++ 
version is approved for release, it could be at the 2.2.2 level, but 
released separately.  Following that, we could fold it into the the next 
big release, if we were doing all of it together.
> I can see some value in having
> separate bug-fix updates for different components, sort of like the
> hotfix we just had (but with changing the version #).  The idea is
> that users can avoid doing any update at all if the only thing that's
> changed is something they don't use.  So we're saving the user work,
> rather than adding more work which is what we're doing by not having
> any synchronization at all between our parts and forcing users to
> download things piecemeal as they become available.
>   
I agree.

Perhaps we should separate these 2 ideas:
(1) releasing:  this is a process of packaging, voting, uploading, etc.
(2) packaging: (warning - I'm dreaming here) maybe we could invent some 
new approach whereby the downloader could easily select exactly what 
they wanted from our web site, from a single item to sets of items...

-Marshall

Mime
View raw message