I have been thinking a bit about this. > On 19.08.2016, at 09:57, Peter Klügl <peter.klu...@averbis.com> wrote: > > What are our options concerning the three projects? The functionality in > ruta calling analysis engines is needed (preferable without switching in > future).
With the present release versions of UIMA/uimaFIT, the following should be done when creating analysis engines inside other analysis engines: // use createEngineDescription instead of createEngine AnalysisEngineDescription aed = createEngineDescription(MyNestedAE.class); // Obtain resource manager from enclosing AE ResourceManager mgr = ((UimaContextAdmin) getContext()).getResourceManager(); // Use that resource manager when creating the actual engine AnalysisEngine engine = UIMAFramework.produceAnalysisEngine(aed, mgr, null); > Yes, uimaFIT should not create a resource manager, or at least there > should be an option to reuse a given one... There is no uimaFIT method for this because it can easily be accomplished using UIMAFramework. > or at least a given classloader. The switching is somewhat problematic > for me and Ruta, but did not cause too serious problems yet. You could also do that by creating your own resource manager and using it when creating the engine: ResourceManager resMgr = UIMAFramework.newDefaultResourceManager(); resMgr.setExtensionClassPath(myClassLoader, "", true); > There is of course ResourceManagerFactory.setResourceManagerCreator(). > With this, I could delegate the existing/ruta resource manager to the > uimaFIT factories, but I do not know if I should really do this in a > static manner. I don't think that makes sense in this case. I added that function in case somebody wants to use uimaFIT with the original UIMA behavior (i.e. without using the Thread context classloader) or to experiment with other classloading scenarios. What do you think? Cheers, -- Richard
