Hi Armin.
Thanks for your quick answer!
While the workaround is indeed helpful, I am still curios why is there no
regular mechanism to define new types and create new descriptors
programmatically, much like all other UIMA components?
I mean, what is the difference between type-system and all other UIMA
components, that forced the UimaFIT engineers to leave the XML-based
definitions for types, while getting rid of XMLs for all the rest of UIMA?
2016-09-09 13:59 GMT+03:00 <armin.weg...@bka.bund.de>:
> Hi Asher!
>
> As a work around, you can use an empty type system,
>
> TypeSystemDescription tsd = TypeSystemDescriptionFactory.
> createTypeSystemDescription("EmptyTypeSystem");
>
> add types programmatically,
>
> tsd.addType(typeName, null, CAS.TYPE_NAME_ANNOTATION);
>
> and get them later with
>
> Type type = cas.getTypeSystem().getType(typeName);
>
> The empty type system is an XML descriptor file without types residing
> somewhere in the class path. I use this for unit testing when I need a
> fresh type system.
>
> Cheers,
> Armin
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Asher Stern [mailto:aste...@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 9. September 2016 12:17
> An: user@uima.apache.org
> Betreff: General question about UimaFIT
>
> Hi.
> I have a general question regarding UimaFIT.
> In UimaFIT there is no longer need to write and deal with XML files, thanks
> to new classes and annotations.
>
> This is the case for almost all UIMA components, like AE, AAE, CPE, etc.
> However, for type-system definition, XML files are still required.
> My question is why?
> Is there a technical issue that makes it impossible to get rid of
> type-system XMLs? Or is it intentional due to some policy?
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Asher
>
