Adam Lally wrote:
...
(2) It is confusing that an object of type "CAS" could be either a
base CAS or a view. A base CAS has several unsupported operations,
which throw exceptions if you call them. I cannot think of a rational
justification for this design other than backwards compatibility.
Most of the recent discussions have been about how to fix this,
however as I said in my previous note any attempt to fix this
seriously complicates the migration story. Maybe someone can come up
with a brilliant idea about how we can fix this and still support
migration? That would be nice.
-Adam
I agree, but would put it even more strongly: the current design is
broken and needs to be fixed. We can't expect to move to the CAS view
design without breaking some backward compatibility. I'd personally
much rather manually port a score of annotators and know what I'm doing
and why I'm doing it, than have an automatic migration tool insert some
code snippets that I don't understand.
--Thilo
