On 8/9/2013 4:44 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: > Am 09.08.2013 um 21:42 schrieb Marshall Schor <[email protected]>: > >> The uima-fit parent pom says: property: uima-version = 2.4.1, should it say >> 2.4.2? > uimaFIT currently does not require 2.4.2, but it requires 2.4.1. The next > version is likely to require 2.4.2 (or whatever is current then) due to > changes enabled by UIMA-3143 [1]. I didn't plan to cram that in now. > > So there is no strict requirement on 2.4.2. Are you suggesting to depend on > 2.4.2 because it's the latest bugfix release?
So, this raises an interesting question, which we've grappled with before. If uimaFIT is intended as an "add-on" to the UIMA SDK, and should work with "several" versions, should the uimaFIT binary release actually include the base UIMA jars? We first packaged UIMA-AS, an add-on to base UIMA, as just having the added stuff. But we found that users found that inconvenient, and wanted it "bundled". So we switched to including base UIMA with it. (And in that binary distro, we also include the base UIMA javadocs, suitably renamed to avoid collision). Here, your packaging is set up to include the base uima jars (at least, most of them - it's missing the following: uima-adapter-soap, uima-adapter-vinci, uima-document-annotation, uimaj-bootstrap). If you're including UIMA jars as a convenience, you might want to include *all* of the jars, and in that case, because of the buggyness of uima 2.4.1, I would suggest including 2.4.2 :-) . If you expect the user to separately get base UIMA and install uimaFit on top, then I guess I wonder why would there be in uimaFIT binary distribution *any* inclusion of (some) UIMA jars? -Marshall > > -- Richard > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-3143
