No concrete date but its a matter of weeks not months.

Jerry


On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:41 PM, RYAN C. CORNIA <ryan.cor...@utah.edu>wrote:

> Thanks Jerry.
>
> Yes, I was expecting the status to have a blank CAS or some other
> difference, which it currently does not.
>
> Any idea on when 2.5.0 will be out?
> Ryan
>
>
> On 1/23/14, 2:37 PM, "Jaroslaw Cwiklik" <uim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The UIMA-AS client code calls onBeforeMessageSend() for both Process and
> >CPC requests. Its just a confirmation the request was delivered to a
> >queue.
> >From what I see while trying to replicate the scenario is that on CPC the
> >status object (passed in to onBeforeMessageSend() )contains a reference to
> >the last CAS which is clearly a bug. I will create JIRA for this and fix
> >it
> >in 2.5.0.
> >
> >Thanks for bringing this up.
> >
> >Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> >On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:58 PM, RYAN C. CORNIA
> ><ryan.cor...@utah.edu>wrote:
> >
> >> We¹ve been using UIMA AS 2.4.0, with a listener that counts CASes as
> >>they
> >> are sent via the Listener.onBeforeMessageSend(UimaASProcessStatus
> >>status)
> >> method.
> >>
> >> We then compare the count with the received count in
> >> collectionProcessComplete(EntityProcessStatus aStatus) to make sure the
> >> listener has received all of the CASes it sent before exiting.
> >>Otherwise,
> >> if the listener is slow, a collectionProcessComplete message can be
> >> received before the final entityProcessComplete() method is called for
> >>the
> >> last CASes.
> >>
> >> This worked in 2.4.0, but in 2.4.2, I am finding the
> >> onBeforeMessageSend(status) method is called once for ever CAS (as it
> >> should be),but then one additional time on the last CAS. So, my count is
> >> off because I send 12 CAS, but the counter registers 13 when the
> >> onBeforeMessageSend(status) is called twice on the last document.
> >>
> >> Any ideas why it would be called twice on the last document for a
> >> listener? It is a change in 2.4.2 that was not there in 2.4.0.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ryan
> >>
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to