uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Kl├╝gl <peter.klu...@averbis.com>
Subject Re: CasIOUtils class - some meta-questions
Date Thu, 04 Aug 2016 07:14:23 GMT
We need at least one of these because it is not really feasible to
distinguish xcas and xmi only based on the content (first few bytes). I
would prefer URL to Path and File because you can point to a file within
a jar.

Am 03.08.2016 um 22:49 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> The "mitigating" factor would be if we could easily imagine a significant
> sub-community of UIMA users appreciating these variants.  In this particular
> case, I'm leaning toward agreeing with Richard, but am fine with having some
> variants if needed by Peter. 
> -Marshall
> On 8/3/2016 4:32 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>> Under that policy, should we really introduce all kinds of variants using 
>> File, Path, and URL not rather stick to InputStream (maybe to URL which
>> incurs additional overhead opening/closing streams)?
>> -- Richard
>>> On 03.08.2016, at 22:29, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
>>> My general feeling: anytime we make something "public" it becomes "set in
>>> stone".  So, it is best not to make things public ahead of clear
>>> needs/use-cases.  That way, if at some point in the future, we find we now have
>>> a clear use-case for the loadBinary kind of thing, we can implement it then,
>>> without any worries about backwards compatibility :-).
>>> Kind of a "lazy" API creation, I guess.
>>> -Marshall

View raw message