> On 16.12.2017, at 13:48, Peter Klügl <peter.klu...@averbis.com> wrote: > >> Is it a problem for us to simply implement Matthias's solution: Make use >> of the parameters in the PearSpecifier and just set them in the wrapped >> analysis engine description if they are compatible? >> > > Are there any opinions on this?
First, I was a bit confused and though the "PearSpecifier" would be this guy here [1]. The I realized it is this one [2]. Looking at where the parameters of the PearSpecifier are used: apparently the setParameter and getParameter are only ever called directly in unit tests. Does it mean that the frameworks so far does not make any use of these parameter as all? Or maybe they are used via some inherited methods...? It sounds reasonable to me that these parameters are forwarded to the top-level component in the PEAR - the question I am asking myself is though: why doesn't this already happen and (maybe) what else where these PearSpecifier parameters intended to do then? Cheers, -- Richard [1] http://uima.apache.org/d/uimaj-current/references.html#ugr.ref.pear.installation_descriptor [2] http://uima.apache.org/d/uimaj-current/references.html#ugr.ref.pear.specifier
