On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jörn Kottmann wrote: > >> This does sound like a good direction. In order to use the CAS viewer it >>> should be accepted into the sandbox. Any objection to resubmitting the >>> vote? >>> >> >> There is still no plan how to merge it with the Cas Editor, expect for a >> small >> part which handles how to open the Cas Viewer eclipse editor. >> >> We should decide this first, then we can resubmit the vote. >> >> In my opinion the only way to truly merge it with the Cas Editor is >> "Level-2" sharing. >> If we do not want this we have many things duplicated and two tools which >> show a Cas in a slightly different way. >> >> Are there other options that we missed ? Other than Level-1 sharing >> which can only share ui widgets. >> >> Future work like Cas journaling ui has then also to be done >> twice if the plan is to build it directly into the Cas Viewer. >> >> Jörn >> > > First let me echo what others have said: it would be very > good if we had a consistent Eclipse tooling strategy, not > one with several competing tools. It would be my hope that > Joern and Tong can cooperate on that tooling strategy. > > Here's what I would suggest, as someone who will probably > not write a single line of code for this effort. We should > decide on one tool as the basis for viewing and editing > CASes. As we have already released the CAS Editor, it should > be that one tool. We should vote the CasViewer into the > sandbox with the express understanding that it will never > see a release, but ideas and code from the CasViewer will > be used to improve and enhance the CAS Editor. The CAS > Editor will evolve into a tool that can be used either > stand-alone (as it is now), or integrated into the rest > of the UIMA tooling. > Thilo, I think we are moving into this direction to have one integrated tool. > That's my suggestion after having watched this thread for > a while. Obviously, it will only work if both Joern and > Tong can get behind this plan. > > Tong, I understand that you have put a lot of effort into > the CAS Viewer, and I would fully understand if you didn't > agree to this suggestion. Still, I believe that for UIMA > as a whole, it would be the best solution. Well, you are right that I am not completely agree on the approach. But, if we think as the "community", I will accept and support the majority opinions for the best interest of UIMA community as you suggested. -- Tong
