uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Toepfer <martin.toep...@uni-wuerzburg.de>
Subject Re: UIMA Ruta next steps
Date Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:53:48 GMT
+1 to move to Java 6. We sometimes use Ruta without the Eclipse 
workbench in applications. Java 7 would also be fine, however, I think 
we should not move to Java 8 until required.

-- Martin

> + 1 to move to Java 6 or Java 7  (or Java 8, GA due in mid-March).
>
> Here's my rationale (which will probably expose some of my ignorance about the
> Ruta details :-) ):
>
> Ruta is an Eclispe workbench.  This means that the way you use it is to run
> Eclipse, and then Ruta runs "within it".  [If Ruta is a thing which is used via
> being embedded into other systems, then the argument doesn't apply].
>
> So, forcing a dependency on Java 7 or 8 means you have to run just one app,
> namely, Eclipse, on that Java.  And Eclipse runs fine on Java 8 (candidates)
> already :-).
>
> So it's unlikely that will be much of an issue for your customers.
>
> This is in contrast to other deployments of UIMA things, where they're more
> likely (possibly) integrated into other systems, and those systems would need (a
> lot of testing- investment) to move to more recent versions of Java.
>
> -Marshall
> On 1/10/2014 7:04 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> I know we already have talked about the strategy of the required java
>> version, but I think I have seen that ducc depends on java 6.
>>
>> I would like to move ruta also to java 6 since I could really need some
>> methods only available in java 6.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> Am 10.01.2014 12:29, schrieb Peter Klügl:
>>> Btw, Martin volunteered as release manager for the upcoming ruta release
>>> if nobody objects.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> Am 07.01.2014 19:08, schrieb Martin Toepfer:
>>>> +1 for "2.2.0" because there will be several improvements in the next
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>> +1 for 2nd digit. Last digit be minor features and bug fixes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I usually update the 2nd digit by default when I do
>>>>> releases and reserve the last digit for shoving in intermediate
>>>>> maintenance revisions of the last release.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Richard
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07.01.2014, at 13:17, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to having the 2nd digit increment if there are more than minor
>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>> especially if some of those changes might require some user action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Marshall
>>>>>> On 1/7/2014 5:13 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if the next version should be 2.2.0 instead of 2.1.1
since
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> new import syntax and functionality is not a small change and
the
>>>>>>> improvements in UIMA-2332 will maybe have a obvious impact for
the
>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any opinions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter

-- 

MSc. Martin Toepfer      Raum: B008
Universität Würzburg     Tel.: +49-(0)931-31-81856
Am Hubland               Fax.: -
97074 Würzburg           mail: martin.toepfer@uni-wuerzburg.de

www: http://www.is.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/mitarbeiter/toepfer/


Mime
View raw message