uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marshall Schor (JIRA)" <...@uima.apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Comment Edited] (UIMA-2978) CustomResourceSpecifier has no support for resource meta data
Date Wed, 12 Oct 2016 21:46:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2978?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13678526#comment-13678526
] 

Marshall Schor edited comment on UIMA-2978 at 10/12/16 9:45 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------

ConfigurableDataResourceSpecifier adds the ResourceMetaData, but it also adds the DataResource.
What I'd like to have (any probably the issue should be renamed accordingly) is a ConfigurableResourceSpecifier
(without data).

I marked it as a bug, because the Resource interface specifies a getMetaData() method, so
one should be able to assume (at least I did) that this should always filled by any specifier.
Also, storing the configuration settings of a resource in the meta data should probably be
preferred over having a second, less expressive parameter specification mechanism. Following
that train of through one should probably be able to assume that any Resource is "configurable"
and that a "ConfigurableResourceSpecified" wouldn't even be required as configurability should
already be provided by "ResourceSpecifier".

It's not release critical, but I thinks its major enough to think seriously about it (and
it's the default). If there was a "normal", I'd have marked it as that, but the next lower
level is "minor", which I think doesn't do it justice either.



was (Author: rec):
ConfigurableDataResourceSpecifier adds the ResourceMetaData, but it also adds the DataResource.
What I'd like to have (any probably the issue should be renamed accordingly) is a ConfigurableResourceSpecifier
(without data).

I marked it as a bug, because the Resource interface specifies a getMetaData() method, so
one should be able to assume (at least I did) that this should always filled by any specifier.
Also, storing the configuration settings of a resource in the meta data should probably be
preferred over having a second, less expressive parameter specification mechanism. Following
that train of through one should probably be able to assume that any Resource is "configurable"
and that a "ConfigurableResourceSpecified" wouldn't even be required as configurability should
already be provided by "ResourceSpecifier".

It's not release critical, but I thinks its major enough to thing seriously about it (and
it's the default). If there was a "normal", I'd have marked it as that, but the next lower
level is "minor", which I think doesn't do it justice either.


> CustomResourceSpecifier has no support for resource meta data
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: UIMA-2978
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2978
>             Project: UIMA
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Core Java Framework
>            Reporter: Richard Eckart de Castilho
>              Labels: Resources
>
> The CustomResourceSpecifier provides a way of defining new custom types of Resources
(e.g. *not* DataResources) which can be acquired via the ResourceManager. 
> The CustomResourceSpecifier does not support the usual ResourceMetaData, which includes
support for the typical UIMA parameter configuration. It supports only single-valued String
parameters.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message