On 07.01.2018, at 22:40, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree this could be an issue if you need to pass same-named but > differently-defined JCas classes among these different type systems. If this > is > the case, I'd be curious about the semantics - I would guess that only the > "common" part of the JCas class (common to all different type systems) would > be > being accessed. If that's true, I'm wondering if a better approach (but > certainly more work) is to refactor so that this common part is a different > common (unchanging) type?
That sounds spooky :) As far as I know, that's no territory I had ventured in so far. Cheers, -- Richard
