Thilo Goetz wrote:
As I see it, we're not going to reach consensus on this issue. I
guess this is at least in part due to the fact that we disagree on the
basic premises underlying this redesign. I am -1 to the current
proposal, and I'll give my reasons below. However, I think we've
mostly
Adam Lally wrote:
On 1/5/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Solution 1:
How about always passing in a JCasView object? For unaware components,
this would be the view to use. For view aware components, this would be
some view (perhaps picked in a similar way), but the user code woul
Then let the users speak. I don't know a single one. Maybe if I knew a
few, I would be less pig-headed. I know plenty of users who will not
thank us for making a complicated API even more complicated, without any
apparent benefit (to them, blessed view-free souls that they are).
Hmmm. The poi
Eddie Epstein wrote:
Thilo,
The switch from single-artifact CASes to multi-Sofa CASes and views was
a fundamental change in the basic UIMA architecture. We are not doing
our users a favor by hiding this change from them.
The main point of the new proposal is to make all annotator writers
aw
Thilo,
The switch from single-artifact CASes to multi-Sofa CASes and views was
a fundamental change in the basic UIMA architecture. We are not doing
our users a favor by hiding this change from them.
The main point of the new proposal is to make all annotator writers aware of
multi-artifact c
As I see it, we're not going to reach consensus on this issue. I guess
this is at least in part due to the fact that we disagree on the basic
premises underlying this redesign. I am -1 to the current proposal, and
I'll give my reasons below. However, I think we've mostly discussed
most of wh
