You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@opennlp.apache.org by Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu> on 2011/03/22 16:16:15 UTC
question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition to opennlp.ml
Hi everyone,
Jorn and I have had a little discussion about a topic I brought up with him
that I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on. I'm including our conversation
below, but the gist of it is this:
- I've been switching to development in Scala. At this point, I personally
see little point in coding in Java given that Scala is available (and very
very nice) and it plays very well with existing Java -- I'm very happy with
this for several projects I'm working on, including
TextGrounder<http://code.google.com/p/textgrounder/>and
Junto <http://code.google.com/p/junto/>. So, I'd like to see Scala making
its way into OpenNLP.
- We need to reorganize the maxent code into the new package opennlp.ml
- I'd like to create the new package, retaining the Java code as is, make a
first release, and then allow Scala code to mix in with the Java from that
point on
- A number of issues come up with this, including using another build tool
like SBT instead of Maven and ensuring we are Apache compliant and so on.
So, this is really just a feeler to see what you all think and see if you
have any enthusiasm, reservations or suggestions. Thanks!
Jason
Forwarded conversation
Subject: opennlp.ml + Scala?
------------------------
From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:28 PM
To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
Hi Jorn,
I've changed over to doing nearly all my coding in Scala, generally
transitioning Java codebases to Scala by writing everything new in Scala and
using the existing Java classes as they are. I would like to do this as part
of the new opennlp.ml, as I'm not inclined to write any new Java code unless
absolutely necessary, and I would very much like to create that new and
improved package. What do you think of this?
Jason
--
Jason Baldridge
Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
The University of Texas at Austin
http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
----------
From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:24 PM
To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
Hmm, yeah, if we would rewrite it I think it is something we could
consider, but in our case we just need
to do some reshaping of the existing code and a little refactoring here and
there. That is one reason
I believe we should be conservative and not use it in this case.
Other issues I see is that it will be a message to the mahout people that we
do not want to collaborate,
which in fact I believe is something we should do to get map reduce training
support one day.
The people in the team might not be familiar with scala, which could further
limit the man power
which is available for the re-factoring. Just my 2 cents.
I believe we should also do the maxent refactoring slowly and first do
everything inside the current
structures, and then when everythign is in place do the last changes which
break backward compatibilty.
Anyway we should start a discussion about the future of OpenNLP, which
features do we want
to implement for the next few versions? Which new components would be nice
to have?
I believe there are quit some people who are willing to pick up tasks but
are simply not
aware about the possibility.
Jörn
----------
From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM
To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
Hmm... what if we did the first refactoring into opennlp.ml with pure Java
but the new package structure, then make a first release and then start
bringing in Scala?
Good points. However, I'm finding that Scala plays *very* nicely with Java
(including allowing Java to use Scala classes), so that could be mostly
transparent to users of the package, maintaining the API pretty much as it
is. So, I *think* we could continue to play nicely with Mahout folks.
Also, after coding for a while in Scala, I can't help but feel that Java the
language is dead, while the JVM lives gloriously on. :) I think there is a
lot of momentum to Scala in general, and my feeling is that it is very
friendly for Java programmers. (Though I had experience in functional
programming before, so a lot of concepts came easily to me that could be
more unusual for others.)
What do you mean by "current structures"? Do you mean to keep the classes as
they are now, but just switch the package organization first?
Yes, perhaps we should do that once the release is all done? (Thanks for all
your hard work on that, btw!)
Also, perhaps we should bring up the Scala question on the mailing list? I
wanted to ask you first to see if you had strong objections first, but since
you don't it might be good to sound out the community.
Jason
----------
From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:38 PM
To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
I actually think just doing it for maxent/ml doesn't really makes sense, if
we want to switch the programming
language its for entire code base. Then we speak about the migration of like
400 classes from java
to scala, does that really makes sense? Just doing a little scala doesn't
sounds reasonable for me.
Sure move it to the mailing list.
Jörn
----------
From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:44 PM
To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
But, the great thing about Scala is that you can mix Scala and Java and not
have to do one or the other -- so I don't think we'd need to do a full
migration. Anyway, I'll bring it up on the list!
----------
From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:54 PM
To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
Yeah, but then still most of the code will remain to be pure java mixed with
a little scala, but you have
to deal with the extra complexity for having a little scala, e.g. more
complex build tooling, you need
extra IDE support, more complicated compatibility issues, etc.
Jörn
----------
From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:39 PM
To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
The build is *really* easy with SBT (which can incorporate maven and ivy
dependency declarations). The idea would be to transition to Scala so that
it would eventually be mostly scala, if not all scala. A standard jar is
still distributed.
----------
From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:33 AM
To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
We are using maven right now, and it does a lot of more than just putting
together a jar file
e.g.:
- Making a release, with code signing, tagging in our SCM, producing rat
reports, etc.
- Deploying artifacts to the Apache repository
- Building our documentation
- Testing
- Optionally it can run code quality tools like find bugs or a test coverage
tools
Jörn
----------
From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:11 AM
To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
These might need some looking into, but are probably doable.
These are builtin targets for SBT.
-j
----------
From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:20 AM
To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
Our entire build system was just rewritten to meet Apache rules and
standards, if we
do that again now it will set the project back for like a month or so.
Jörn
----------
From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM
To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
Fair enough. I will still bring it up as it now actually pains me to code in
Java. ;)
Oh, here is how to deploy artifacts:
http://henkelmann.eu/2010/11/14/sbt_hudson_with_test_integration
I think the others would be straightforward. Possibly one of the bigger
sticking points would be IDE integration -- I use Emacs and it all works
very well for me, but I don't know how it is for Eclipse and NetBeans folks.
----------
From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:40 AM
To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
I didn't say its not possible to rewrite our build with SBT, but I strongly
believe that is an effort which
will take quite some time e.g. a month just to get a build which is as good
as our maven build we just
finished.
All the people have to install the scala plugins into their IDEs to get
proper support, which is
of course also possible.
Yeah bring it up on the mailing list.
Jörn
----------
From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:46 AM
To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
Sounds good. And I find that it is often straightforward to take Maven
specifications and either use them directly from SBT or translate them into
the SBT definitions. Perhaps we could start this with opennlp.ml and then
see how it goes before doing it in the main OpenNLP code.
--
Jason Baldridge
Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
The University of Texas at Austin
http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
Re: question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition
to opennlp.ml
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
On 4/10/11 8:37 PM, Jason Baldridge wrote:
> It's been a while since I posted these request for input... Does anyone have
> any thoughts on it? Is anyone else interested in Scala being part of
> OpenNLP?
I already commented and have nothing new to say.
Jörn
Re: question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition
to opennlp.ml
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
On 4/12/11 5:13 AM, Jason Baldridge wrote:
> Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I think the first step is to refactor the
> package sticking with Java and then we'll see about moving to a Scala/Java
> mix after that (but only for the opennlp machine learning package, currently
> opennlp-maxent).
>
> I was actually sort of appalled looking through the code yesterday and
> seeing so many global variables used all over the place, making it hard to
> know exactly what every method had access to. I think this was sort of an
> artifact of how I used Trove functions a loooong time ago to enable quick
> iteration over the data structures (which required some objects to be
> global). That is obviously gone now, but the global variables didn't go
> away... hope I'll find time to improve things over the next 5-6 months.
I know there are lots of global variables, but I think that is easy to
refactor
and to test afterward.
Jörn
Re: question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition to opennlp.ml
Posted by Jason Baldridge <ja...@gmail.com>.
I also wrote a lot of that code back in 1999/2000, and have, ahem, learned a
lot since then. :)
Jason
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:41 PM, James Kosin <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jason,
>
> Don't worry, hindsight is always 20/20. But, it takes very good
> planning and a lot of time to do it right the first time.
>
> It always gets better the more you work it.
>
> James
>
> On 4/11/2011 11:13 PM, Jason Baldridge wrote:
> > Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I think the first step is to refactor
> the
> > package sticking with Java and then we'll see about moving to a
> Scala/Java
> > mix after that (but only for the opennlp machine learning package,
> currently
> > opennlp-maxent).
> >
> > I was actually sort of appalled looking through the code yesterday and
> > seeing so many global variables used all over the place, making it hard
> to
> > know exactly what every method had access to. I think this was sort of an
> > artifact of how I used Trove functions a loooong time ago to enable quick
> > iteration over the data structures (which required some objects to be
> > global). That is obviously gone now, but the global variables didn't go
> > away... hope I'll find time to improve things over the next 5-6 months.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Tommaso Teofili
> > <to...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jason,
> >> I personally have some Scala experience while working with Clerezza [1]
> >> which uses both Java and Scala but what I think is that, while Scala is
> >> perfectly ok with existing Java standards and allowing
> functional/dynamic
> >> programming, it raises the barrier for new users/devs a little bit.
> >> So I am not so sure that a Scala implementation should totally replace
> an
> >> existing one, maybe a graceful introduction would be more welcome.
> >> My 2 cents,
> >> Tommaso
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] : http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza
> >>
> >> 2011/4/10 Jason Baldridge <ja...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >>> It's been a while since I posted these request for input... Does anyone
> >>> have
> >>> any thoughts on it? Is anyone else interested in Scala being part of
> >>> OpenNLP?
> >>>
> >>> Jason
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jason Baldridge
> >>> <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>
> >>>> Jorn and I have had a little discussion about a topic I brought up
> with
> >>> him
> >>>> that I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on. I'm including our
> >>> conversation
> >>>> below, but the gist of it is this:
> >>>>
> >>>> - I've been switching to development in Scala. At this point, I
> >>> personally
> >>>> see little point in coding in Java given that Scala is available (and
> >>> very
> >>>> very nice) and it plays very well with existing Java -- I'm very happy
> >>> with
> >>>> this for several projects I'm working on, including TextGrounder<
> >>> http://code.google.com/p/textgrounder/>and
> >>>> Junto <http://code.google.com/p/junto/>. So, I'd like to see Scala
> >>> making
> >>>
> >>>> its way into OpenNLP.
> >>>> - We need to reorganize the maxent code into the new package
> >>> opennlp.ml
> >>>> - I'd like to create the new package, retaining the Java code as is,
> >>> make
> >>>> a first release, and then allow Scala code to mix in with the Java
> from
> >>> that
> >>>> point on
> >>>> - A number of issues come up with this, including using another build
> >>> tool
> >>>> like SBT instead of Maven and ensuring we are Apache compliant and so
> >>> on.
> >>>> So, this is really just a feeler to see what you all think and see if
> >>> you
> >>>> have any enthusiasm, reservations or suggestions. Thanks!
> >>>>
> >>>> Jason
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Forwarded conversation
> >>>> Subject: opennlp.ml + Scala?
> >>>> ------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:28 PM
> >>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Jorn,
> >>>>
> >>>> I've changed over to doing nearly all my coding in Scala, generally
> >>>> transitioning Java codebases to Scala by writing everything new in
> Scala
> >>> and
> >>>> using the existing Java classes as they are. I would like to do this
> as
> >>> part
> >>>> of the new opennlp.ml, as I'm not inclined to write any new Java code
> >>>> unless absolutely necessary, and I would very much like to create that
> >>> new
> >>>> and improved package. What do you think of this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Jason
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jason Baldridge
> >>>> Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
> >>>> The University of Texas at Austin
> >>>> http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> >>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:24 PM
> >>>> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmm, yeah, if we would rewrite it I think it is something we could
> >>>> consider, but in our case we just need
> >>>> to do some reshaping of the existing code and a little refactoring
> here
> >>> and
> >>>> there. That is one reason
> >>>> I believe we should be conservative and not use it in this case.
> >>>>
> >>>> Other issues I see is that it will be a message to the mahout people
> >>> that
> >>>> we do not want to collaborate,
> >>>> which in fact I believe is something we should do to get map reduce
> >>>> training support one day.
> >>>> The people in the team might not be familiar with scala, which could
> >>>> further limit the man power
> >>>> which is available for the re-factoring. Just my 2 cents.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe we should also do the maxent refactoring slowly and first do
> >>>> everything inside the current
> >>>> structures, and then when everythign is in place do the last changes
> >>> which
> >>>> break backward compatibilty.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway we should start a discussion about the future of OpenNLP, which
> >>>> features do we want
> >>>> to implement for the next few versions? Which new components would be
> >>> nice
> >>>> to have?
> >>>> I believe there are quit some people who are willing to pick up tasks
> >>> but
> >>>> are simply not
> >>>> aware about the possibility.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jörn
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM
> >>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmm... what if we did the first refactoring into opennlp.ml with pure
> >>> Java
> >>>> but the new package structure, then make a first release and then
> start
> >>>> bringing in Scala?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Good points. However, I'm finding that Scala plays *very* nicely with
> >>> Java
> >>>> (including allowing Java to use Scala classes), so that could be
> mostly
> >>>> transparent to users of the package, maintaining the API pretty much
> as
> >>> it
> >>>> is. So, I *think* we could continue to play nicely with Mahout folks.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, after coding for a while in Scala, I can't help but feel that
> Java
> >>>> the language is dead, while the JVM lives gloriously on. :) I think
> >>> there is
> >>>> a lot of momentum to Scala in general, and my feeling is that it is
> very
> >>>> friendly for Java programmers. (Though I had experience in functional
> >>>> programming before, so a lot of concepts came easily to me that could
> be
> >>>> more unusual for others.)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you mean by "current structures"? Do you mean to keep the
> >>> classes
> >>>> as they are now, but just switch the package organization first?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, perhaps we should do that once the release is all done? (Thanks
> for
> >>>> all your hard work on that, btw!)
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, perhaps we should bring up the Scala question on the mailing
> list?
> >>> I
> >>>> wanted to ask you first to see if you had strong objections first, but
> >>> since
> >>>> you don't it might be good to sound out the community.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jason
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> >>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:38 PM
> >>>> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I actually think just doing it for maxent/ml doesn't really makes
> sense,
> >>> if
> >>>> we want to switch the programming
> >>>> language its for entire code base. Then we speak about the migration
> of
> >>>> like 400 classes from java
> >>>> to scala, does that really makes sense? Just doing a little scala
> >>> doesn't
> >>>> sounds reasonable for me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure move it to the mailing list.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jörn
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:44 PM
> >>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But, the great thing about Scala is that you can mix Scala and Java
> and
> >>> not
> >>>> have to do one or the other -- so I don't think we'd need to do a full
> >>>> migration. Anyway, I'll bring it up on the list!
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> >>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:54 PM
> >>>> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah, but then still most of the code will remain to be pure java
> mixed
> >>>> with a little scala, but you have
> >>>> to deal with the extra complexity for having a little scala, e.g. more
> >>>> complex build tooling, you need
> >>>> extra IDE support, more complicated compatibility issues, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jörn
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:39 PM
> >>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The build is *really* easy with SBT (which can incorporate maven and
> ivy
> >>>> dependency declarations). The idea would be to transition to Scala so
> >>> that
> >>>> it would eventually be mostly scala, if not all scala. A standard jar
> is
> >>>> still distributed.
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> >>>> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:33 AM
> >>>> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We are using maven right now, and it does a lot of more than just
> >>> putting
> >>>> together a jar file
> >>>> e.g.:
> >>>> - Making a release, with code signing, tagging in our SCM, producing
> rat
> >>>> reports, etc.
> >>>> - Deploying artifacts to the Apache repository
> >>>> - Building our documentation
> >>>> - Testing
> >>>> - Optionally it can run code quality tools like find bugs or a test
> >>>> coverage tools
> >>>>
> >>>> Jörn
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:11 AM
> >>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> These might need some looking into, but are probably doable.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> These are builtin targets for SBT.
> >>>>
> >>>> -j
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> >>>> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:20 AM
> >>>> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Our entire build system was just rewritten to meet Apache rules and
> >>>> standards, if we
> >>>> do that again now it will set the project back for like a month or so.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jörn
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM
> >>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Fair enough. I will still bring it up as it now actually pains me to
> >>> code
> >>>> in Java. ;)
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, here is how to deploy artifacts:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://henkelmann.eu/2010/11/14/sbt_hudson_with_test_integration
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the others would be straightforward. Possibly one of the
> bigger
> >>>> sticking points would be IDE integration -- I use Emacs and it all
> works
> >>>> very well for me, but I don't know how it is for Eclipse and NetBeans
> >>> folks.
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> >>>> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:40 AM
> >>>> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I didn't say its not possible to rewrite our build with SBT, but I
> >>> strongly
> >>>> believe that is an effort which
> >>>> will take quite some time e.g. a month just to get a build which is as
> >>> good
> >>>> as our maven build we just
> >>>> finished.
> >>>> All the people have to install the scala plugins into their IDEs to
> get
> >>>> proper support, which is
> >>>> of course also possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah bring it up on the mailing list.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jörn
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:46 AM
> >>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sounds good. And I find that it is often straightforward to take Maven
> >>>> specifications and either use them directly from SBT or translate them
> >>> into
> >>>> the SBT definitions. Perhaps we could start this with opennlp.ml and
> >>> then
> >>>> see how it goes before doing it in the main OpenNLP code.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jason Baldridge
> >>>> Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
> >>>> The University of Texas at Austin
> >>>> http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jason Baldridge
> >>> Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
> >>> The University of Texas at Austin
> >>> http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
Jason Baldridge
Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
The University of Texas at Austin
http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
http://twitter.com/jasonbaldridge
Re: question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition
to opennlp.ml
Posted by James Kosin <ja...@gmail.com>.
Jason,
Don't worry, hindsight is always 20/20. But, it takes very good
planning and a lot of time to do it right the first time.
It always gets better the more you work it.
James
On 4/11/2011 11:13 PM, Jason Baldridge wrote:
> Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I think the first step is to refactor the
> package sticking with Java and then we'll see about moving to a Scala/Java
> mix after that (but only for the opennlp machine learning package, currently
> opennlp-maxent).
>
> I was actually sort of appalled looking through the code yesterday and
> seeing so many global variables used all over the place, making it hard to
> know exactly what every method had access to. I think this was sort of an
> artifact of how I used Trove functions a loooong time ago to enable quick
> iteration over the data structures (which required some objects to be
> global). That is obviously gone now, but the global variables didn't go
> away... hope I'll find time to improve things over the next 5-6 months.
>
> Jason
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Tommaso Teofili
> <to...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>> I personally have some Scala experience while working with Clerezza [1]
>> which uses both Java and Scala but what I think is that, while Scala is
>> perfectly ok with existing Java standards and allowing functional/dynamic
>> programming, it raises the barrier for new users/devs a little bit.
>> So I am not so sure that a Scala implementation should totally replace an
>> existing one, maybe a graceful introduction would be more welcome.
>> My 2 cents,
>> Tommaso
>>
>>
>> [1] : http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza
>>
>> 2011/4/10 Jason Baldridge <ja...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> It's been a while since I posted these request for input... Does anyone
>>> have
>>> any thoughts on it? Is anyone else interested in Scala being part of
>>> OpenNLP?
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jason Baldridge
>>> <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> Jorn and I have had a little discussion about a topic I brought up with
>>> him
>>>> that I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on. I'm including our
>>> conversation
>>>> below, but the gist of it is this:
>>>>
>>>> - I've been switching to development in Scala. At this point, I
>>> personally
>>>> see little point in coding in Java given that Scala is available (and
>>> very
>>>> very nice) and it plays very well with existing Java -- I'm very happy
>>> with
>>>> this for several projects I'm working on, including TextGrounder<
>>> http://code.google.com/p/textgrounder/>and
>>>> Junto <http://code.google.com/p/junto/>. So, I'd like to see Scala
>>> making
>>>
>>>> its way into OpenNLP.
>>>> - We need to reorganize the maxent code into the new package
>>> opennlp.ml
>>>> - I'd like to create the new package, retaining the Java code as is,
>>> make
>>>> a first release, and then allow Scala code to mix in with the Java from
>>> that
>>>> point on
>>>> - A number of issues come up with this, including using another build
>>> tool
>>>> like SBT instead of Maven and ensuring we are Apache compliant and so
>>> on.
>>>> So, this is really just a feeler to see what you all think and see if
>>> you
>>>> have any enthusiasm, reservations or suggestions. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Forwarded conversation
>>>> Subject: opennlp.ml + Scala?
>>>> ------------------------
>>>>
>>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:28 PM
>>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jorn,
>>>>
>>>> I've changed over to doing nearly all my coding in Scala, generally
>>>> transitioning Java codebases to Scala by writing everything new in Scala
>>> and
>>>> using the existing Java classes as they are. I would like to do this as
>>> part
>>>> of the new opennlp.ml, as I'm not inclined to write any new Java code
>>>> unless absolutely necessary, and I would very much like to create that
>>> new
>>>> and improved package. What do you think of this?
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jason Baldridge
>>>> Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
>>>> The University of Texas at Austin
>>>> http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:24 PM
>>>> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, yeah, if we would rewrite it I think it is something we could
>>>> consider, but in our case we just need
>>>> to do some reshaping of the existing code and a little refactoring here
>>> and
>>>> there. That is one reason
>>>> I believe we should be conservative and not use it in this case.
>>>>
>>>> Other issues I see is that it will be a message to the mahout people
>>> that
>>>> we do not want to collaborate,
>>>> which in fact I believe is something we should do to get map reduce
>>>> training support one day.
>>>> The people in the team might not be familiar with scala, which could
>>>> further limit the man power
>>>> which is available for the re-factoring. Just my 2 cents.
>>>>
>>>> I believe we should also do the maxent refactoring slowly and first do
>>>> everything inside the current
>>>> structures, and then when everythign is in place do the last changes
>>> which
>>>> break backward compatibilty.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway we should start a discussion about the future of OpenNLP, which
>>>> features do we want
>>>> to implement for the next few versions? Which new components would be
>>> nice
>>>> to have?
>>>> I believe there are quit some people who are willing to pick up tasks
>>> but
>>>> are simply not
>>>> aware about the possibility.
>>>>
>>>> Jörn
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM
>>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmm... what if we did the first refactoring into opennlp.ml with pure
>>> Java
>>>> but the new package structure, then make a first release and then start
>>>> bringing in Scala?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good points. However, I'm finding that Scala plays *very* nicely with
>>> Java
>>>> (including allowing Java to use Scala classes), so that could be mostly
>>>> transparent to users of the package, maintaining the API pretty much as
>>> it
>>>> is. So, I *think* we could continue to play nicely with Mahout folks.
>>>>
>>>> Also, after coding for a while in Scala, I can't help but feel that Java
>>>> the language is dead, while the JVM lives gloriously on. :) I think
>>> there is
>>>> a lot of momentum to Scala in general, and my feeling is that it is very
>>>> friendly for Java programmers. (Though I had experience in functional
>>>> programming before, so a lot of concepts came easily to me that could be
>>>> more unusual for others.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by "current structures"? Do you mean to keep the
>>> classes
>>>> as they are now, but just switch the package organization first?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, perhaps we should do that once the release is all done? (Thanks for
>>>> all your hard work on that, btw!)
>>>>
>>>> Also, perhaps we should bring up the Scala question on the mailing list?
>>> I
>>>> wanted to ask you first to see if you had strong objections first, but
>>> since
>>>> you don't it might be good to sound out the community.
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:38 PM
>>>> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I actually think just doing it for maxent/ml doesn't really makes sense,
>>> if
>>>> we want to switch the programming
>>>> language its for entire code base. Then we speak about the migration of
>>>> like 400 classes from java
>>>> to scala, does that really makes sense? Just doing a little scala
>>> doesn't
>>>> sounds reasonable for me.
>>>>
>>>> Sure move it to the mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> Jörn
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:44 PM
>>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, the great thing about Scala is that you can mix Scala and Java and
>>> not
>>>> have to do one or the other -- so I don't think we'd need to do a full
>>>> migration. Anyway, I'll bring it up on the list!
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:54 PM
>>>> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but then still most of the code will remain to be pure java mixed
>>>> with a little scala, but you have
>>>> to deal with the extra complexity for having a little scala, e.g. more
>>>> complex build tooling, you need
>>>> extra IDE support, more complicated compatibility issues, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Jörn
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:39 PM
>>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The build is *really* easy with SBT (which can incorporate maven and ivy
>>>> dependency declarations). The idea would be to transition to Scala so
>>> that
>>>> it would eventually be mostly scala, if not all scala. A standard jar is
>>>> still distributed.
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:33 AM
>>>> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are using maven right now, and it does a lot of more than just
>>> putting
>>>> together a jar file
>>>> e.g.:
>>>> - Making a release, with code signing, tagging in our SCM, producing rat
>>>> reports, etc.
>>>> - Deploying artifacts to the Apache repository
>>>> - Building our documentation
>>>> - Testing
>>>> - Optionally it can run code quality tools like find bugs or a test
>>>> coverage tools
>>>>
>>>> Jörn
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:11 AM
>>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These might need some looking into, but are probably doable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These are builtin targets for SBT.
>>>>
>>>> -j
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:20 AM
>>>> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our entire build system was just rewritten to meet Apache rules and
>>>> standards, if we
>>>> do that again now it will set the project back for like a month or so.
>>>>
>>>> Jörn
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM
>>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough. I will still bring it up as it now actually pains me to
>>> code
>>>> in Java. ;)
>>>>
>>>> Oh, here is how to deploy artifacts:
>>>>
>>>> http://henkelmann.eu/2010/11/14/sbt_hudson_with_test_integration
>>>>
>>>> I think the others would be straightforward. Possibly one of the bigger
>>>> sticking points would be IDE integration -- I use Emacs and it all works
>>>> very well for me, but I don't know how it is for Eclipse and NetBeans
>>> folks.
>>>> ----------
>>>> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:40 AM
>>>> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say its not possible to rewrite our build with SBT, but I
>>> strongly
>>>> believe that is an effort which
>>>> will take quite some time e.g. a month just to get a build which is as
>>> good
>>>> as our maven build we just
>>>> finished.
>>>> All the people have to install the scala plugins into their IDEs to get
>>>> proper support, which is
>>>> of course also possible.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah bring it up on the mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> Jörn
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:46 AM
>>>> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good. And I find that it is often straightforward to take Maven
>>>> specifications and either use them directly from SBT or translate them
>>> into
>>>> the SBT definitions. Perhaps we could start this with opennlp.ml and
>>> then
>>>> see how it goes before doing it in the main OpenNLP code.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jason Baldridge
>>>> Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
>>>> The University of Texas at Austin
>>>> http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jason Baldridge
>>> Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
>>> The University of Texas at Austin
>>> http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
>>>
>>
>
Re: question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition to opennlp.ml
Posted by Jason Baldridge <ja...@gmail.com>.
Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I think the first step is to refactor the
package sticking with Java and then we'll see about moving to a Scala/Java
mix after that (but only for the opennlp machine learning package, currently
opennlp-maxent).
I was actually sort of appalled looking through the code yesterday and
seeing so many global variables used all over the place, making it hard to
know exactly what every method had access to. I think this was sort of an
artifact of how I used Trove functions a loooong time ago to enable quick
iteration over the data structures (which required some objects to be
global). That is obviously gone now, but the global variables didn't go
away... hope I'll find time to improve things over the next 5-6 months.
Jason
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Tommaso Teofili
<to...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> I personally have some Scala experience while working with Clerezza [1]
> which uses both Java and Scala but what I think is that, while Scala is
> perfectly ok with existing Java standards and allowing functional/dynamic
> programming, it raises the barrier for new users/devs a little bit.
> So I am not so sure that a Scala implementation should totally replace an
> existing one, maybe a graceful introduction would be more welcome.
> My 2 cents,
> Tommaso
>
>
> [1] : http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza
>
> 2011/4/10 Jason Baldridge <ja...@gmail.com>
>
>> It's been a while since I posted these request for input... Does anyone
>> have
>> any thoughts on it? Is anyone else interested in Scala being part of
>> OpenNLP?
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jason Baldridge
>> <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>wrote:
>>
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > Jorn and I have had a little discussion about a topic I brought up with
>> him
>> > that I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on. I'm including our
>> conversation
>> > below, but the gist of it is this:
>> >
>> > - I've been switching to development in Scala. At this point, I
>> personally
>> > see little point in coding in Java given that Scala is available (and
>> very
>> > very nice) and it plays very well with existing Java -- I'm very happy
>> with
>> > this for several projects I'm working on, including TextGrounder<
>> http://code.google.com/p/textgrounder/>and
>> > Junto <http://code.google.com/p/junto/>. So, I'd like to see Scala
>> making
>>
>> > its way into OpenNLP.
>> > - We need to reorganize the maxent code into the new package
>> opennlp.ml
>> > - I'd like to create the new package, retaining the Java code as is,
>> make
>> > a first release, and then allow Scala code to mix in with the Java from
>> that
>> > point on
>> > - A number of issues come up with this, including using another build
>> tool
>> > like SBT instead of Maven and ensuring we are Apache compliant and so
>> on.
>> >
>> > So, this is really just a feeler to see what you all think and see if
>> you
>> > have any enthusiasm, reservations or suggestions. Thanks!
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >
>> >
>> > Forwarded conversation
>> > Subject: opennlp.ml + Scala?
>> > ------------------------
>> >
>> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:28 PM
>> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Jorn,
>> >
>> > I've changed over to doing nearly all my coding in Scala, generally
>> > transitioning Java codebases to Scala by writing everything new in Scala
>> and
>> > using the existing Java classes as they are. I would like to do this as
>> part
>> > of the new opennlp.ml, as I'm not inclined to write any new Java code
>> > unless absolutely necessary, and I would very much like to create that
>> new
>> > and improved package. What do you think of this?
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jason Baldridge
>> > Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
>> > The University of Texas at Austin
>> > http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
>> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:24 PM
>> > To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> >
>> >
>> > Hmm, yeah, if we would rewrite it I think it is something we could
>> > consider, but in our case we just need
>> > to do some reshaping of the existing code and a little refactoring here
>> and
>> > there. That is one reason
>> > I believe we should be conservative and not use it in this case.
>> >
>> > Other issues I see is that it will be a message to the mahout people
>> that
>> > we do not want to collaborate,
>> > which in fact I believe is something we should do to get map reduce
>> > training support one day.
>> > The people in the team might not be familiar with scala, which could
>> > further limit the man power
>> > which is available for the re-factoring. Just my 2 cents.
>> >
>> > I believe we should also do the maxent refactoring slowly and first do
>> > everything inside the current
>> > structures, and then when everythign is in place do the last changes
>> which
>> > break backward compatibilty.
>> >
>> > Anyway we should start a discussion about the future of OpenNLP, which
>> > features do we want
>> > to implement for the next few versions? Which new components would be
>> nice
>> > to have?
>> > I believe there are quit some people who are willing to pick up tasks
>> but
>> > are simply not
>> > aware about the possibility.
>> >
>> > Jörn
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM
>> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hmm... what if we did the first refactoring into opennlp.ml with pure
>> Java
>> > but the new package structure, then make a first release and then start
>> > bringing in Scala?
>> >
>> >
>> > Good points. However, I'm finding that Scala plays *very* nicely with
>> Java
>> > (including allowing Java to use Scala classes), so that could be mostly
>> > transparent to users of the package, maintaining the API pretty much as
>> it
>> > is. So, I *think* we could continue to play nicely with Mahout folks.
>> >
>> > Also, after coding for a while in Scala, I can't help but feel that Java
>> > the language is dead, while the JVM lives gloriously on. :) I think
>> there is
>> > a lot of momentum to Scala in general, and my feeling is that it is very
>> > friendly for Java programmers. (Though I had experience in functional
>> > programming before, so a lot of concepts came easily to me that could be
>> > more unusual for others.)
>> >
>> >
>> > What do you mean by "current structures"? Do you mean to keep the
>> classes
>> > as they are now, but just switch the package organization first?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, perhaps we should do that once the release is all done? (Thanks for
>> > all your hard work on that, btw!)
>> >
>> > Also, perhaps we should bring up the Scala question on the mailing list?
>> I
>> > wanted to ask you first to see if you had strong objections first, but
>> since
>> > you don't it might be good to sound out the community.
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
>> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:38 PM
>> > To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> >
>> >
>> > I actually think just doing it for maxent/ml doesn't really makes sense,
>> if
>> > we want to switch the programming
>> > language its for entire code base. Then we speak about the migration of
>> > like 400 classes from java
>> > to scala, does that really makes sense? Just doing a little scala
>> doesn't
>> > sounds reasonable for me.
>> >
>> > Sure move it to the mailing list.
>> >
>> > Jörn
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:44 PM
>> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > But, the great thing about Scala is that you can mix Scala and Java and
>> not
>> > have to do one or the other -- so I don't think we'd need to do a full
>> > migration. Anyway, I'll bring it up on the list!
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
>> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:54 PM
>> > To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah, but then still most of the code will remain to be pure java mixed
>> > with a little scala, but you have
>> > to deal with the extra complexity for having a little scala, e.g. more
>> > complex build tooling, you need
>> > extra IDE support, more complicated compatibility issues, etc.
>> >
>> > Jörn
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:39 PM
>> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > The build is *really* easy with SBT (which can incorporate maven and ivy
>> > dependency declarations). The idea would be to transition to Scala so
>> that
>> > it would eventually be mostly scala, if not all scala. A standard jar is
>> > still distributed.
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
>> > Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:33 AM
>> > To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> >
>> >
>> > We are using maven right now, and it does a lot of more than just
>> putting
>> > together a jar file
>> > e.g.:
>> > - Making a release, with code signing, tagging in our SCM, producing rat
>> > reports, etc.
>> > - Deploying artifacts to the Apache repository
>> > - Building our documentation
>> > - Testing
>> > - Optionally it can run code quality tools like find bugs or a test
>> > coverage tools
>> >
>> > Jörn
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> > Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:11 AM
>> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > These might need some looking into, but are probably doable.
>> >
>> >
>> > These are builtin targets for SBT.
>> >
>> > -j
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
>> > Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:20 AM
>> > To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> >
>> >
>> > Our entire build system was just rewritten to meet Apache rules and
>> > standards, if we
>> > do that again now it will set the project back for like a month or so.
>> >
>> > Jörn
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> > Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM
>> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > Fair enough. I will still bring it up as it now actually pains me to
>> code
>> > in Java. ;)
>> >
>> > Oh, here is how to deploy artifacts:
>> >
>> > http://henkelmann.eu/2010/11/14/sbt_hudson_with_test_integration
>> >
>> > I think the others would be straightforward. Possibly one of the bigger
>> > sticking points would be IDE integration -- I use Emacs and it all works
>> > very well for me, but I don't know how it is for Eclipse and NetBeans
>> folks.
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
>> > Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:40 AM
>> > To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> >
>> >
>> > I didn't say its not possible to rewrite our build with SBT, but I
>> strongly
>> > believe that is an effort which
>> > will take quite some time e.g. a month just to get a build which is as
>> good
>> > as our maven build we just
>> > finished.
>> > All the people have to install the scala plugins into their IDEs to get
>> > proper support, which is
>> > of course also possible.
>> >
>> > Yeah bring it up on the mailing list.
>> >
>> > Jörn
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> > Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:46 AM
>> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > Sounds good. And I find that it is often straightforward to take Maven
>> > specifications and either use them directly from SBT or translate them
>> into
>> > the SBT definitions. Perhaps we could start this with opennlp.ml and
>> then
>> > see how it goes before doing it in the main OpenNLP code.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jason Baldridge
>> > Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
>> > The University of Texas at Austin
>> > http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jason Baldridge
>> Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
>> The University of Texas at Austin
>> http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
>>
>
>
--
Jason Baldridge
Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
The University of Texas at Austin
http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
Re: question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition to opennlp.ml
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jason,
I personally have some Scala experience while working with Clerezza [1]
which uses both Java and Scala but what I think is that, while Scala is
perfectly ok with existing Java standards and allowing functional/dynamic
programming, it raises the barrier for new users/devs a little bit.
So I am not so sure that a Scala implementation should totally replace an
existing one, maybe a graceful introduction would be more welcome.
My 2 cents,
Tommaso
[1] : http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza
2011/4/10 Jason Baldridge <ja...@gmail.com>
> It's been a while since I posted these request for input... Does anyone
> have
> any thoughts on it? Is anyone else interested in Scala being part of
> OpenNLP?
>
> Jason
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jason Baldridge
> <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Jorn and I have had a little discussion about a topic I brought up with
> him
> > that I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on. I'm including our
> conversation
> > below, but the gist of it is this:
> >
> > - I've been switching to development in Scala. At this point, I
> personally
> > see little point in coding in Java given that Scala is available (and
> very
> > very nice) and it plays very well with existing Java -- I'm very happy
> with
> > this for several projects I'm working on, including TextGrounder<
> http://code.google.com/p/textgrounder/>and
> > Junto <http://code.google.com/p/junto/>. So, I'd like to see Scala
> making
> > its way into OpenNLP.
> > - We need to reorganize the maxent code into the new package opennlp.ml
> > - I'd like to create the new package, retaining the Java code as is,
> make
> > a first release, and then allow Scala code to mix in with the Java from
> that
> > point on
> > - A number of issues come up with this, including using another build
> tool
> > like SBT instead of Maven and ensuring we are Apache compliant and so on.
> >
> > So, this is really just a feeler to see what you all think and see if you
> > have any enthusiasm, reservations or suggestions. Thanks!
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > Forwarded conversation
> > Subject: opennlp.ml + Scala?
> > ------------------------
> >
> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:28 PM
> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > Hi Jorn,
> >
> > I've changed over to doing nearly all my coding in Scala, generally
> > transitioning Java codebases to Scala by writing everything new in Scala
> and
> > using the existing Java classes as they are. I would like to do this as
> part
> > of the new opennlp.ml, as I'm not inclined to write any new Java code
> > unless absolutely necessary, and I would very much like to create that
> new
> > and improved package. What do you think of this?
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > --
> > Jason Baldridge
> > Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
> > The University of Texas at Austin
> > http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
> >
> > ----------
> > From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:24 PM
> > To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >
> >
> > Hmm, yeah, if we would rewrite it I think it is something we could
> > consider, but in our case we just need
> > to do some reshaping of the existing code and a little refactoring here
> and
> > there. That is one reason
> > I believe we should be conservative and not use it in this case.
> >
> > Other issues I see is that it will be a message to the mahout people that
> > we do not want to collaborate,
> > which in fact I believe is something we should do to get map reduce
> > training support one day.
> > The people in the team might not be familiar with scala, which could
> > further limit the man power
> > which is available for the re-factoring. Just my 2 cents.
> >
> > I believe we should also do the maxent refactoring slowly and first do
> > everything inside the current
> > structures, and then when everythign is in place do the last changes
> which
> > break backward compatibilty.
> >
> > Anyway we should start a discussion about the future of OpenNLP, which
> > features do we want
> > to implement for the next few versions? Which new components would be
> nice
> > to have?
> > I believe there are quit some people who are willing to pick up tasks but
> > are simply not
> > aware about the possibility.
> >
> > Jörn
> >
> > ----------
> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM
> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hmm... what if we did the first refactoring into opennlp.ml with pure
> Java
> > but the new package structure, then make a first release and then start
> > bringing in Scala?
> >
> >
> > Good points. However, I'm finding that Scala plays *very* nicely with
> Java
> > (including allowing Java to use Scala classes), so that could be mostly
> > transparent to users of the package, maintaining the API pretty much as
> it
> > is. So, I *think* we could continue to play nicely with Mahout folks.
> >
> > Also, after coding for a while in Scala, I can't help but feel that Java
> > the language is dead, while the JVM lives gloriously on. :) I think there
> is
> > a lot of momentum to Scala in general, and my feeling is that it is very
> > friendly for Java programmers. (Though I had experience in functional
> > programming before, so a lot of concepts came easily to me that could be
> > more unusual for others.)
> >
> >
> > What do you mean by "current structures"? Do you mean to keep the classes
> > as they are now, but just switch the package organization first?
> >
> >
> > Yes, perhaps we should do that once the release is all done? (Thanks for
> > all your hard work on that, btw!)
> >
> > Also, perhaps we should bring up the Scala question on the mailing list?
> I
> > wanted to ask you first to see if you had strong objections first, but
> since
> > you don't it might be good to sound out the community.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:38 PM
> > To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >
> >
> > I actually think just doing it for maxent/ml doesn't really makes sense,
> if
> > we want to switch the programming
> > language its for entire code base. Then we speak about the migration of
> > like 400 classes from java
> > to scala, does that really makes sense? Just doing a little scala doesn't
> > sounds reasonable for me.
> >
> > Sure move it to the mailing list.
> >
> > Jörn
> >
> > ----------
> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:44 PM
> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > But, the great thing about Scala is that you can mix Scala and Java and
> not
> > have to do one or the other -- so I don't think we'd need to do a full
> > migration. Anyway, I'll bring it up on the list!
> >
> > ----------
> > From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:54 PM
> > To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >
> >
> > Yeah, but then still most of the code will remain to be pure java mixed
> > with a little scala, but you have
> > to deal with the extra complexity for having a little scala, e.g. more
> > complex build tooling, you need
> > extra IDE support, more complicated compatibility issues, etc.
> >
> > Jörn
> >
> > ----------
> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> > Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:39 PM
> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > The build is *really* easy with SBT (which can incorporate maven and ivy
> > dependency declarations). The idea would be to transition to Scala so
> that
> > it would eventually be mostly scala, if not all scala. A standard jar is
> > still distributed.
> >
> > ----------
> > From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:33 AM
> > To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >
> >
> > We are using maven right now, and it does a lot of more than just putting
> > together a jar file
> > e.g.:
> > - Making a release, with code signing, tagging in our SCM, producing rat
> > reports, etc.
> > - Deploying artifacts to the Apache repository
> > - Building our documentation
> > - Testing
> > - Optionally it can run code quality tools like find bugs or a test
> > coverage tools
> >
> > Jörn
> >
> > ----------
> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> > Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:11 AM
> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > These might need some looking into, but are probably doable.
> >
> >
> > These are builtin targets for SBT.
> >
> > -j
> >
> > ----------
> > From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:20 AM
> > To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >
> >
> > Our entire build system was just rewritten to meet Apache rules and
> > standards, if we
> > do that again now it will set the project back for like a month or so.
> >
> > Jörn
> >
> > ----------
> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> > Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM
> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > Fair enough. I will still bring it up as it now actually pains me to code
> > in Java. ;)
> >
> > Oh, here is how to deploy artifacts:
> >
> > http://henkelmann.eu/2010/11/14/sbt_hudson_with_test_integration
> >
> > I think the others would be straightforward. Possibly one of the bigger
> > sticking points would be IDE integration -- I use Emacs and it all works
> > very well for me, but I don't know how it is for Eclipse and NetBeans
> folks.
> >
> > ----------
> > From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:40 AM
> > To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >
> >
> > I didn't say its not possible to rewrite our build with SBT, but I
> strongly
> > believe that is an effort which
> > will take quite some time e.g. a month just to get a build which is as
> good
> > as our maven build we just
> > finished.
> > All the people have to install the scala plugins into their IDEs to get
> > proper support, which is
> > of course also possible.
> >
> > Yeah bring it up on the mailing list.
> >
> > Jörn
> >
> > ----------
> > From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> > Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:46 AM
> > To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > Sounds good. And I find that it is often straightforward to take Maven
> > specifications and either use them directly from SBT or translate them
> into
> > the SBT definitions. Perhaps we could start this with opennlp.ml and
> then
> > see how it goes before doing it in the main OpenNLP code.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jason Baldridge
> > Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
> > The University of Texas at Austin
> > http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Baldridge
> Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
> The University of Texas at Austin
> http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
>
Re: question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition
to opennlp.ml
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
On 4/12/11 6:34 PM, Lee Hinman wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/11 5:28 PM, Lee Hinman wrote:
>>> As someone who currently works on the Clojure lib for OpenNLP, I would like to throw in my support for a push to a more functional style codebase. Immutable objects and less global state would definitely make it easier to work with, be it with a Java refactoring and/or a move to Scala.
>>>
>>> +1 for Scala/Refactor (or Clojure, but Scala is probably an easier transition to make :)
>> I do not think that converting an existing code base to a new programing language is
>> good for the project, and tend to vote -1 when it comes to the decision.
>>
>> Jörn
> Is that a -1 only to Scala, or -1 to a refactor also?
I was just speaking about the Scala/Clojure conversion.
Actually I am +1 for the refactoring and will also help with it, but
that has
to wait a little until we are done with the release here.
Jörn
Re: question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition to opennlp.ml
Posted by Lee Hinman <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 12, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> On 4/12/11 5:28 PM, Lee Hinman wrote:
>> As someone who currently works on the Clojure lib for OpenNLP, I would like to throw in my support for a push to a more functional style codebase. Immutable objects and less global state would definitely make it easier to work with, be it with a Java refactoring and/or a move to Scala.
>>
>> +1 for Scala/Refactor (or Clojure, but Scala is probably an easier transition to make :)
>
> I do not think that converting an existing code base to a new programing language is
> good for the project, and tend to vote -1 when it comes to the decision.
>
> Jörn
Is that a -1 only to Scala, or -1 to a refactor also?
- Lee
Re: question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition to opennlp.ml
Posted by Jason Baldridge <ja...@gmail.com>.
To counter: I think it can be good if the old language is crufty and the way
of the past... ;)
Cheekiness aside, I probably won't contribute as much to coding for OpenNLP
if we can't start mixing in Scala.
Jason
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/12/11 5:28 PM, Lee Hinman wrote:
>
>> As someone who currently works on the Clojure lib for OpenNLP, I would
>> like to throw in my support for a push to a more functional style codebase.
>> Immutable objects and less global state would definitely make it easier to
>> work with, be it with a Java refactoring and/or a move to Scala.
>>
>> +1 for Scala/Refactor (or Clojure, but Scala is probably an easier
>> transition to make :)
>>
>
> I do not think that converting an existing code base to a new programing
> language is
> good for the project, and tend to vote -1 when it comes to the decision.
>
> Jörn
>
--
Jason Baldridge
Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
The University of Texas at Austin
http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
Re: question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition
to opennlp.ml
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
On 4/12/11 5:28 PM, Lee Hinman wrote:
> As someone who currently works on the Clojure lib for OpenNLP, I would like to throw in my support for a push to a more functional style codebase. Immutable objects and less global state would definitely make it easier to work with, be it with a Java refactoring and/or a move to Scala.
>
> +1 for Scala/Refactor (or Clojure, but Scala is probably an easier transition to make :)
I do not think that converting an existing code base to a new programing
language is
good for the project, and tend to vote -1 when it comes to the decision.
Jörn
Re: question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition to opennlp.ml
Posted by Lee Hinman <ma...@gmail.com>.
As someone who currently works on the Clojure lib for OpenNLP, I would like to throw in my support for a push to a more functional style codebase. Immutable objects and less global state would definitely make it easier to work with, be it with a Java refactoring and/or a move to Scala.
+1 for Scala/Refactor (or Clojure, but Scala is probably an easier transition to make :)
- Lee Hinman
Re: question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition to opennlp.ml
Posted by Olivier Grisel <ol...@ensta.org>.
2011/4/10 Jason Baldridge <ja...@gmail.com>:
> It's been a while since I posted these request for input... Does anyone have
> any thoughts on it? Is anyone else interested in Scala being part of
> OpenNLP?
I am not an OpenNLP developer but since nobody replies to your
inquiries, here is my opinion:
- scala is good for readability while being similar enough to java so
that java developers are not completely lost when reading scala source
code.
- if scala is restricted to the machine learning classes of OpenNLP,
this won't impact the project a lot since very few people are able to
understand this part anyway (because of the background in math and
machine learning required to understand that part).
I had one issue with using scala for machine learning stuff in the
past: the VisualVM profiler did not track the scala function names
correctly (you could not see them in the UI) while it works great for
both Java and clojure generated bytecode. I suppose this is just an
issue on the pattern of the function names tracked by visualvm, but
this is really annoying not to be able to profile machine learning
code with standard tools in practice. I don't if it was fixed since
last time I tried (about 2 years ago).
--
Olivier
http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel
Re: question for y'all regarding Scala in OpenNLP and transition to opennlp.ml
Posted by Jason Baldridge <ja...@gmail.com>.
It's been a while since I posted these request for input... Does anyone have
any thoughts on it? Is anyone else interested in Scala being part of
OpenNLP?
Jason
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jason Baldridge
<jb...@mail.utexas.edu>wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Jorn and I have had a little discussion about a topic I brought up with him
> that I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on. I'm including our conversation
> below, but the gist of it is this:
>
> - I've been switching to development in Scala. At this point, I personally
> see little point in coding in Java given that Scala is available (and very
> very nice) and it plays very well with existing Java -- I'm very happy with
> this for several projects I'm working on, including TextGrounder<http://code.google.com/p/textgrounder/>and
> Junto <http://code.google.com/p/junto/>. So, I'd like to see Scala making
> its way into OpenNLP.
> - We need to reorganize the maxent code into the new package opennlp.ml
> - I'd like to create the new package, retaining the Java code as is, make
> a first release, and then allow Scala code to mix in with the Java from that
> point on
> - A number of issues come up with this, including using another build tool
> like SBT instead of Maven and ensuring we are Apache compliant and so on.
>
> So, this is really just a feeler to see what you all think and see if you
> have any enthusiasm, reservations or suggestions. Thanks!
>
> Jason
>
>
> Forwarded conversation
> Subject: opennlp.ml + Scala?
> ------------------------
>
> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:28 PM
> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>
>
> Hi Jorn,
>
> I've changed over to doing nearly all my coding in Scala, generally
> transitioning Java codebases to Scala by writing everything new in Scala and
> using the existing Java classes as they are. I would like to do this as part
> of the new opennlp.ml, as I'm not inclined to write any new Java code
> unless absolutely necessary, and I would very much like to create that new
> and improved package. What do you think of this?
>
> Jason
>
> --
> Jason Baldridge
> Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
> The University of Texas at Austin
> http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
>
> ----------
> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:24 PM
> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>
>
> Hmm, yeah, if we would rewrite it I think it is something we could
> consider, but in our case we just need
> to do some reshaping of the existing code and a little refactoring here and
> there. That is one reason
> I believe we should be conservative and not use it in this case.
>
> Other issues I see is that it will be a message to the mahout people that
> we do not want to collaborate,
> which in fact I believe is something we should do to get map reduce
> training support one day.
> The people in the team might not be familiar with scala, which could
> further limit the man power
> which is available for the re-factoring. Just my 2 cents.
>
> I believe we should also do the maxent refactoring slowly and first do
> everything inside the current
> structures, and then when everythign is in place do the last changes which
> break backward compatibilty.
>
> Anyway we should start a discussion about the future of OpenNLP, which
> features do we want
> to implement for the next few versions? Which new components would be nice
> to have?
> I believe there are quit some people who are willing to pick up tasks but
> are simply not
> aware about the possibility.
>
> Jörn
>
> ----------
> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM
> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hmm... what if we did the first refactoring into opennlp.ml with pure Java
> but the new package structure, then make a first release and then start
> bringing in Scala?
>
>
> Good points. However, I'm finding that Scala plays *very* nicely with Java
> (including allowing Java to use Scala classes), so that could be mostly
> transparent to users of the package, maintaining the API pretty much as it
> is. So, I *think* we could continue to play nicely with Mahout folks.
>
> Also, after coding for a while in Scala, I can't help but feel that Java
> the language is dead, while the JVM lives gloriously on. :) I think there is
> a lot of momentum to Scala in general, and my feeling is that it is very
> friendly for Java programmers. (Though I had experience in functional
> programming before, so a lot of concepts came easily to me that could be
> more unusual for others.)
>
>
> What do you mean by "current structures"? Do you mean to keep the classes
> as they are now, but just switch the package organization first?
>
>
> Yes, perhaps we should do that once the release is all done? (Thanks for
> all your hard work on that, btw!)
>
> Also, perhaps we should bring up the Scala question on the mailing list? I
> wanted to ask you first to see if you had strong objections first, but since
> you don't it might be good to sound out the community.
>
> Jason
>
>
> ----------
> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:38 PM
> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>
>
> I actually think just doing it for maxent/ml doesn't really makes sense, if
> we want to switch the programming
> language its for entire code base. Then we speak about the migration of
> like 400 classes from java
> to scala, does that really makes sense? Just doing a little scala doesn't
> sounds reasonable for me.
>
> Sure move it to the mailing list.
>
> Jörn
>
> ----------
> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:44 PM
> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>
>
> But, the great thing about Scala is that you can mix Scala and Java and not
> have to do one or the other -- so I don't think we'd need to do a full
> migration. Anyway, I'll bring it up on the list!
>
> ----------
> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:54 PM
> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>
>
> Yeah, but then still most of the code will remain to be pure java mixed
> with a little scala, but you have
> to deal with the extra complexity for having a little scala, e.g. more
> complex build tooling, you need
> extra IDE support, more complicated compatibility issues, etc.
>
> Jörn
>
> ----------
> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:39 PM
> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>
>
> The build is *really* easy with SBT (which can incorporate maven and ivy
> dependency declarations). The idea would be to transition to Scala so that
> it would eventually be mostly scala, if not all scala. A standard jar is
> still distributed.
>
> ----------
> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:33 AM
> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>
>
> We are using maven right now, and it does a lot of more than just putting
> together a jar file
> e.g.:
> - Making a release, with code signing, tagging in our SCM, producing rat
> reports, etc.
> - Deploying artifacts to the Apache repository
> - Building our documentation
> - Testing
> - Optionally it can run code quality tools like find bugs or a test
> coverage tools
>
> Jörn
>
> ----------
> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:11 AM
> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> These might need some looking into, but are probably doable.
>
>
> These are builtin targets for SBT.
>
> -j
>
> ----------
> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:20 AM
> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>
>
> Our entire build system was just rewritten to meet Apache rules and
> standards, if we
> do that again now it will set the project back for like a month or so.
>
> Jörn
>
> ----------
> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM
> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>
>
> Fair enough. I will still bring it up as it now actually pains me to code
> in Java. ;)
>
> Oh, here is how to deploy artifacts:
>
> http://henkelmann.eu/2010/11/14/sbt_hudson_with_test_integration
>
> I think the others would be straightforward. Possibly one of the bigger
> sticking points would be IDE integration -- I use Emacs and it all works
> very well for me, but I don't know how it is for Eclipse and NetBeans folks.
>
> ----------
> From: *Jörn Kottmann* <ko...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:40 AM
> To: Jason Baldridge <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
>
>
> I didn't say its not possible to rewrite our build with SBT, but I strongly
> believe that is an effort which
> will take quite some time e.g. a month just to get a build which is as good
> as our maven build we just
> finished.
> All the people have to install the scala plugins into their IDEs to get
> proper support, which is
> of course also possible.
>
> Yeah bring it up on the mailing list.
>
> Jörn
>
> ----------
> From: *Jason Baldridge* <jb...@mail.utexas.edu>
> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:46 AM
> To: Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
>
>
> Sounds good. And I find that it is often straightforward to take Maven
> specifications and either use them directly from SBT or translate them into
> the SBT definitions. Perhaps we could start this with opennlp.ml and then
> see how it goes before doing it in the main OpenNLP code.
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Baldridge
> Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
> The University of Texas at Austin
> http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
>
--
Jason Baldridge
Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
The University of Texas at Austin
http://www.jasonbaldridge.com