I'm pinging some people who might know something about LanguageWare's use of this feature. -Marshall
On 1/10/2018 6:07 AM, Peter Klügl wrote: > Hi, > > > Am 10.01.2018 um 10:57 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho: >>> 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? > Yes, these are exactly the questions we had :-) > > I rather wanted to ask twice before I open an issue or implement > something. Could always be that I missed something. Initially, I thought > that the IBM guys (LanguageWare) made massive use of the PEAR concept > and they surely had some possibility to configure their PEARs. > > Best, > > Peter > > >> 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
