It's posted here: http://uima.apache.org/staging/osgi.html
Comments welcome. -Marshall On 8/10/2011 10:10 AM, Marshall Schor wrote: > I'm going to take a crack at writing a web page for this (even though I'm not > the expert), just to get something down, which we can modify :-) > > I'll put it up on our web site under a "uima.apache.org/staging/..." > > -Marshall > > On 8/9/2011 1:27 PM, Marshall Schor wrote: >> +1 to add a page to our website somewhere that talks about OSGi bundling. >> Since >> I've never actually run any of the OSGi containers, I don't think I qualify >> to >> do other than a "theory" page - and my theories are often not quite right >> :-) - >> so it would be good if you and/or others that have run things in Felix etc., >> can >> write something. >> >> I'm somewhat in favor of releasing the OSGi bundles as now packaged (once >> they've been verified to work in this form), since Tommaso (for one) finds >> them >> useful and uses them in some projects. >> >> -Marshall >> >> On 8/9/2011 12:07 PM, Jörn Kottmann wrote: >>> On 8/9/11 5:43 PM, Marshall Schor wrote: >>>> A broader OSGi "support" for UIMA could be done, where we make UIMA aware >>>> of >>>> OSGi, and have it use OSGi "services" to load classes from bundles, etc., >>>> but >>>> that hasn't been done. >>>> >>>> Let me know if this is off-base with respect to use cases you know >>>> about...; any >>>> testing appreciated:-) >>> Well, I am still skeptical if it is a good idea to release this. Because it >>> might >>> simply not work for many. >>> >>> As soon as a user wants to mix the addon AEs with a custom AEs he needs >>> to repackage everything. >>> >>> Why not directly tell our users, that they need to put everything into one >>> bundle them self to get UIMA running in an OSGi container? >>> >>> Jörn >>>
