On 5/2/11 11:13 PM, Jason Baldridge wrote:
I think the redesign of opennlp.maxent into opennlp.ml should not be pinned down by the previous API. I say this mainly because the current design has a lot of obvious problems, including poor encapsulation and a proliferation of methods for different options that could be handled much more cleanly. So, I propose a fairly clean break with the past API. Thoughts?
Yes, I agree, but there should be a very strong focus on only break backward compatibility once. In this case I suggest that we use the re-naming also to align the version with the opennlp-tools and opennlp-uima project. Before we actually change anything I suggest that we work on a proposal on how the new API could look, what do you think? Jörn
