+1 for URL. -- Richard
> On 04.08.2016, at 09:14, Peter Klügl <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> 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
