You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> on 2011/07/15 14:29:07 UTC
[VOTE] Release UIMA Addons RC4
Hi all,
I've prepared the new RC (4) for UIMA Addons release.
The following is a list of issues addressed in this release:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12316093
The source zip and binary files are available here:
http://people.apache.org/~tommaso/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4
SVN Tag Checkout:
svn co
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/addons/tags/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4/
Please cast your vote for UIMA Addons 2.3.1 release:
[ ] +1 Approve the release
[ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
[ ] 0 Don't care
Regards,
Tommaso
Re: Meta-question: suitability for this list?
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
yes, no problem for me too.
Tommaso
2011/7/20 Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>
> We have once in a while some advertisement on this list, for conferences,
> releases of UIMA based software and other things.
>
> +1 to allow posting job offerings when they are UIMA related
>
> Jörn
>
>
> On 7/20/11 11:37 AM, jochen.leidner@thomsonreuters.**com<jo...@thomsonreuters.com>wrote:
>
>> Dear Apache UIMA developers,
>>
>> I have a meta-question, which I couldn't find the answer to in a FAQ:
>> would it be considered appropriate or inappropriate to post UIMA-related job
>> offerings to this list?
>>
>> We currently have several UIMA-related openings, but I would not want to
>> post them here if the community thought that was off-topic/not helpful.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jochen
>>
>>
>>
>> Jochen L. Leidner, Ph.D.
>> Senior Research Scientist
>> Catalyst Lab
>> Corporate Technology
>> Thomson Reuters Global Resources
>>
>> http://www.thomsonreuters.com - The Knowledge Effect: The right
>> information in the right hands leads to amazing things.
>> REUTERS news is read by more than two billion people every day -
>> http://www.reuters.com
>>
>>
>
Re: Meta-question: suitability for this list?
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
We have once in a while some advertisement on this list, for conferences,
releases of UIMA based software and other things.
+1 to allow posting job offerings when they are UIMA related
Jörn
On 7/20/11 11:37 AM, jochen.leidner@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
> Dear Apache UIMA developers,
>
> I have a meta-question, which I couldn't find the answer to in a FAQ: would it be considered appropriate or inappropriate to post UIMA-related job offerings to this list?
>
> We currently have several UIMA-related openings, but I would not want to post them here if the community thought that was off-topic/not helpful.
>
> Thanks,
> Jochen
>
>
>
> Jochen L. Leidner, Ph.D.
> Senior Research Scientist
> Catalyst Lab
> Corporate Technology
> Thomson Reuters Global Resources
>
> http://www.thomsonreuters.com - The Knowledge Effect: The right information in the right hands leads to amazing things.
> REUTERS news is read by more than two billion people every day - http://www.reuters.com
>
Meta-question: suitability for this list?
Posted by jo...@thomsonreuters.com.
Dear Apache UIMA developers,
I have a meta-question, which I couldn't find the answer to in a FAQ: would it be considered appropriate or inappropriate to post UIMA-related job offerings to this list?
We currently have several UIMA-related openings, but I would not want to post them here if the community thought that was off-topic/not helpful.
Thanks,
Jochen
Jochen L. Leidner, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
Catalyst Lab
Corporate Technology
Thomson Reuters Global Resources
http://www.thomsonreuters.com - The Knowledge Effect: The right information in the right hands leads to amazing things.
REUTERS news is read by more than two billion people every day - http://www.reuters.com
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA Addons RC4
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <ec...@tk.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de>.
I agree that for the given reasons unpacking and overlaying JARs is not a good option. When working with Bundles in Eclipse it is possible to place JAR dependencies directly into the projects and add them to the bundle classpath. I understand that Embed-Dependency inline=false does the same thing and should be preferred.
- Richard
Richard Eckart de Castilho
Am 19.07.2011 um 21:44 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> Thanks, Richard.
>
> I think you are right - some of the dependencies (for example, the
> AlchemyApiAnnotator depends on Apache commons-digester, etc.) don't have OSGi
> packagings.
>
> The build strategy for the OSGi modules currently gets all the dependencies and
> unpacks them into .../target/classes directory, where a later step "jars" them up.
>
> This approach overlays files being unzipped, with later versions. Some examples
> where this might be an issue:
> There is at the top level a license directory, containing one "LICENSE" file.
> There is at the top level a "plugin.xml" file.
> There is at the top level a META-INF dir, with LICENSE and NOTICE files among
> other things.
>
> Perhaps it would be better to package the dependencies that are not OSGi in a
> way that doesn't need to unpack, and then potentially overlay, files.
>
> It seems that OSGi and the bundle plugin support this, via the Embed-Dependency
> instruction. Is there a reason we're not using that, instead of the "unpacking"
> approach?
>
> -Marshall
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Eckart de Castilho
Technical Lead
Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab
FB 20 Computer Science Department
Technische Universität Darmstadt
Hochschulstr. 10, D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany
phone [+49] (0)6151 16-7477, fax -5455, room S2/02/B117
eckartde@tk.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de
www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de
Web Research at TU Darmstadt (WeRC) www.werc.tu-darmstadt.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA Addons RC4
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
Hello Marshall, Richard,
I've been offline for a couple of days, so first of all, sorry for my late
reply.
Regarding Marshall's comments on Addons distribution package
1. the <mavenExecutorId>forked-path</mavenExecutorId> option has been set up
to avoid Maven/shell lockings while signing artifacts as reported on Maven
mailing list [1]
2. I agree the NOTICE file contents in the binary distribution package
should be improved
3. I thought pdf version of doc was enough for the binary distribution, if
we want html version too I'm +1 for modifying the binary assembly descriptor
to achieve that
4. Regarding the OSGI things I'll reply on the related thread just after
this mail
I'll rollback this RC now.
Thanks all for your comments and feedback.
Regards,
Tommaso
[1] : http://markmail.org/message/xvj3q6wgmlgqhz6l
2011/7/19 Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>
> Thanks, Richard.
>
> I think you are right - some of the dependencies (for example, the
> AlchemyApiAnnotator depends on Apache commons-digester, etc.) don't have
> OSGi
> packagings.
>
> The build strategy for the OSGi modules currently gets all the dependencies
> and
> unpacks them into .../target/classes directory, where a later step "jars"
> them up.
>
> This approach overlays files being unzipped, with later versions. Some
> examples
> where this might be an issue:
> There is at the top level a license directory, containing one "LICENSE"
> file.
> There is at the top level a "plugin.xml" file.
> There is at the top level a META-INF dir, with LICENSE and NOTICE files
> among
> other things.
>
> Perhaps it would be better to package the dependencies that are not OSGi in
> a
> way that doesn't need to unpack, and then potentially overlay, files.
>
> It seems that OSGi and the bundle plugin support this, via the
> Embed-Dependency
> instruction. Is there a reason we're not using that, instead of the
> "unpacking"
> approach?
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 7/19/2011 11:17 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> > I wanted to package the DKPro Core UIMA modules as OSGi bundle. These
> have lots of dependencies on various JARs that are not available as OSGi
> bundles and sometimes not even available in public Maven repositories - this
> is why we set up a public repository of our own for the moment. It may be
> less an issue for the UIMA sandbox, as the individual components may not
> depend on third-party libraries.
> >
> > Looking the Add Ons repository, I would suspect that Tika, Solr, Rhino,
> BeanShell and maybe some of the Apache Commons JARs may not be OSGi bundles.
> >
> > I guess you aim for a mixed setup where some dependencies (namely UIMA)
> are imported via package-imports and others (namely the above) are packaged
> inside the bundles?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > Am 19.07.2011 um 17:08 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> >
> >> I suspect that the Jars are now available as OSGi bundles; do you know
> of
> >> specific ones that are not?
> >>
> >> Thanks. -Marshall
> >>
> >> On 7/19/2011 10:24 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> >>> Hi Marshall,
> >>>
> >>> I am very interested in this. Some time back I mostly gave up on
> packaging UIMA components as OSGi bundles because of this. If you do not
> bundle all jars (*jikes*) and use package imports instead, the questions is:
> where do the dependencies come from? Who prepares the bundles and who
> installs them? Many JARs are not available as OSGi bundles.
> >>>
> >>> -- Richard
> >>>
> >>> Am 19.07.2011 um 16:13 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> >>>
> >>>> I'll take a look at the OSGi build.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Marshall
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7/17/2011 12:16 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> >>>>> Since this is (I think) the first time we're releasing the OSGi
> packaging of the
> >>>>> annotators, I think some work on their license/notice files might be
> needed,
> >>>>> because:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - there are duplicate License files - one at the top level, and one
> in the
> >>>>> META_INF directory
> >>>>> - both of these are the plain vanilla license files. For projects
> which are
> >>>>> incorporating other libraries which are under other than the Apache v
> 2.0
> >>>>> license, those licenses have to be included.
> >>>>> - the NOTICE file is present in the META_INF directory, but is the
> plain one,
> >>>>> rather than the project specific one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Finally, I wonder if the OSGi packaging strategy is correct - in that
> it
> >>>>> "bundles" every dependency into the OSGi file. This certainly makes
> the file
> >>>>> easier to use, but if a user uses 2 OSGi components from UIMA, won't
> there be a
> >>>>> lot of unnecessary duplication (or does OSGi notice this and avoid it
> somehow)?
> >>>>> I'm not sure of an alternative, but I do recall that OSGi allows for
> >>>>> dependencies on other packages; perhaps that could be useful?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Marshall
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 7/15/2011 8:29 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>> I've prepared the new RC (4) for UIMA Addons release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The following is a list of issues addressed in this release:
> >>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12316093
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The source zip and binary files are available here:
> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~tommaso/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> SVN Tag Checkout:
> >>>>>> svn co
> >>>>>>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/addons/tags/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please cast your vote for UIMA Addons 2.3.1 release:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> >>>>>> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
> >>>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Tommaso
> >>>>>>
> > Richard Eckart de Castilho
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA Addons RC4
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Thanks, Richard.
I think you are right - some of the dependencies (for example, the
AlchemyApiAnnotator depends on Apache commons-digester, etc.) don't have OSGi
packagings.
The build strategy for the OSGi modules currently gets all the dependencies and
unpacks them into .../target/classes directory, where a later step "jars" them up.
This approach overlays files being unzipped, with later versions. Some examples
where this might be an issue:
There is at the top level a license directory, containing one "LICENSE" file.
There is at the top level a "plugin.xml" file.
There is at the top level a META-INF dir, with LICENSE and NOTICE files among
other things.
Perhaps it would be better to package the dependencies that are not OSGi in a
way that doesn't need to unpack, and then potentially overlay, files.
It seems that OSGi and the bundle plugin support this, via the Embed-Dependency
instruction. Is there a reason we're not using that, instead of the "unpacking"
approach?
-Marshall
On 7/19/2011 11:17 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> I wanted to package the DKPro Core UIMA modules as OSGi bundle. These have lots of dependencies on various JARs that are not available as OSGi bundles and sometimes not even available in public Maven repositories - this is why we set up a public repository of our own for the moment. It may be less an issue for the UIMA sandbox, as the individual components may not depend on third-party libraries.
>
> Looking the Add Ons repository, I would suspect that Tika, Solr, Rhino, BeanShell and maybe some of the Apache Commons JARs may not be OSGi bundles.
>
> I guess you aim for a mixed setup where some dependencies (namely UIMA) are imported via package-imports and others (namely the above) are packaged inside the bundles?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> Am 19.07.2011 um 17:08 schrieb Marshall Schor:
>
>> I suspect that the Jars are now available as OSGi bundles; do you know of
>> specific ones that are not?
>>
>> Thanks. -Marshall
>>
>> On 7/19/2011 10:24 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>> Hi Marshall,
>>>
>>> I am very interested in this. Some time back I mostly gave up on packaging UIMA components as OSGi bundles because of this. If you do not bundle all jars (*jikes*) and use package imports instead, the questions is: where do the dependencies come from? Who prepares the bundles and who installs them? Many JARs are not available as OSGi bundles.
>>>
>>> -- Richard
>>>
>>> Am 19.07.2011 um 16:13 schrieb Marshall Schor:
>>>
>>>> I'll take a look at the OSGi build.
>>>>
>>>> -Marshall
>>>>
>>>> On 7/17/2011 12:16 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>>>> Since this is (I think) the first time we're releasing the OSGi packaging of the
>>>>> annotators, I think some work on their license/notice files might be needed,
>>>>> because:
>>>>>
>>>>> - there are duplicate License files - one at the top level, and one in the
>>>>> META_INF directory
>>>>> - both of these are the plain vanilla license files. For projects which are
>>>>> incorporating other libraries which are under other than the Apache v 2.0
>>>>> license, those licenses have to be included.
>>>>> - the NOTICE file is present in the META_INF directory, but is the plain one,
>>>>> rather than the project specific one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, I wonder if the OSGi packaging strategy is correct - in that it
>>>>> "bundles" every dependency into the OSGi file. This certainly makes the file
>>>>> easier to use, but if a user uses 2 OSGi components from UIMA, won't there be a
>>>>> lot of unnecessary duplication (or does OSGi notice this and avoid it somehow)?
>>>>> I'm not sure of an alternative, but I do recall that OSGi allows for
>>>>> dependencies on other packages; perhaps that could be useful?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Marshall
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/15/2011 8:29 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> I've prepared the new RC (4) for UIMA Addons release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is a list of issues addressed in this release:
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12316093
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The source zip and binary files are available here:
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~tommaso/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SVN Tag Checkout:
>>>>>> svn co
>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/addons/tags/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please cast your vote for UIMA Addons 2.3.1 release:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>>>>>> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
>>>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>
> Richard Eckart de Castilho
>
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA Addons RC4
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <ec...@tk.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de>.
I wanted to package the DKPro Core UIMA modules as OSGi bundle. These have lots of dependencies on various JARs that are not available as OSGi bundles and sometimes not even available in public Maven repositories - this is why we set up a public repository of our own for the moment. It may be less an issue for the UIMA sandbox, as the individual components may not depend on third-party libraries.
Looking the Add Ons repository, I would suspect that Tika, Solr, Rhino, BeanShell and maybe some of the Apache Commons JARs may not be OSGi bundles.
I guess you aim for a mixed setup where some dependencies (namely UIMA) are imported via package-imports and others (namely the above) are packaged inside the bundles?
Cheers,
Richard
Am 19.07.2011 um 17:08 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> I suspect that the Jars are now available as OSGi bundles; do you know of
> specific ones that are not?
>
> Thanks. -Marshall
>
> On 7/19/2011 10:24 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>> Hi Marshall,
>>
>> I am very interested in this. Some time back I mostly gave up on packaging UIMA components as OSGi bundles because of this. If you do not bundle all jars (*jikes*) and use package imports instead, the questions is: where do the dependencies come from? Who prepares the bundles and who installs them? Many JARs are not available as OSGi bundles.
>>
>> -- Richard
>>
>> Am 19.07.2011 um 16:13 schrieb Marshall Schor:
>>
>>> I'll take a look at the OSGi build.
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>>
>>> On 7/17/2011 12:16 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>>> Since this is (I think) the first time we're releasing the OSGi packaging of the
>>>> annotators, I think some work on their license/notice files might be needed,
>>>> because:
>>>>
>>>> - there are duplicate License files - one at the top level, and one in the
>>>> META_INF directory
>>>> - both of these are the plain vanilla license files. For projects which are
>>>> incorporating other libraries which are under other than the Apache v 2.0
>>>> license, those licenses have to be included.
>>>> - the NOTICE file is present in the META_INF directory, but is the plain one,
>>>> rather than the project specific one.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, I wonder if the OSGi packaging strategy is correct - in that it
>>>> "bundles" every dependency into the OSGi file. This certainly makes the file
>>>> easier to use, but if a user uses 2 OSGi components from UIMA, won't there be a
>>>> lot of unnecessary duplication (or does OSGi notice this and avoid it somehow)?
>>>> I'm not sure of an alternative, but I do recall that OSGi allows for
>>>> dependencies on other packages; perhaps that could be useful?
>>>>
>>>> -Marshall
>>>>
>>>> On 7/15/2011 8:29 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> I've prepared the new RC (4) for UIMA Addons release.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is a list of issues addressed in this release:
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12316093
>>>>>
>>>>> The source zip and binary files are available here:
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~tommaso/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4
>>>>>
>>>>> SVN Tag Checkout:
>>>>> svn co
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/addons/tags/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4/
>>>>>
>>>>> Please cast your vote for UIMA Addons 2.3.1 release:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>>>>> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
>>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>
Richard Eckart de Castilho
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Eckart de Castilho
Technical Lead
Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab
FB 20 Computer Science Department
Technische Universität Darmstadt
Hochschulstr. 10, D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany
phone [+49] (0)6151 16-7477, fax -5455, room S2/02/B117
eckartde@tk.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de
www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de
Web Research at TU Darmstadt (WeRC) www.werc.tu-darmstadt.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA Addons RC4
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
I suspect that the Jars are now available as OSGi bundles; do you know of
specific ones that are not?
Thanks. -Marshall
On 7/19/2011 10:24 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Hi Marshall,
>
> I am very interested in this. Some time back I mostly gave up on packaging UIMA components as OSGi bundles because of this. If you do not bundle all jars (*jikes*) and use package imports instead, the questions is: where do the dependencies come from? Who prepares the bundles and who installs them? Many JARs are not available as OSGi bundles.
>
> -- Richard
>
> Am 19.07.2011 um 16:13 schrieb Marshall Schor:
>
>> I'll take a look at the OSGi build.
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>> On 7/17/2011 12:16 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> Since this is (I think) the first time we're releasing the OSGi packaging of the
>>> annotators, I think some work on their license/notice files might be needed,
>>> because:
>>>
>>> - there are duplicate License files - one at the top level, and one in the
>>> META_INF directory
>>> - both of these are the plain vanilla license files. For projects which are
>>> incorporating other libraries which are under other than the Apache v 2.0
>>> license, those licenses have to be included.
>>> - the NOTICE file is present in the META_INF directory, but is the plain one,
>>> rather than the project specific one.
>>>
>>> Finally, I wonder if the OSGi packaging strategy is correct - in that it
>>> "bundles" every dependency into the OSGi file. This certainly makes the file
>>> easier to use, but if a user uses 2 OSGi components from UIMA, won't there be a
>>> lot of unnecessary duplication (or does OSGi notice this and avoid it somehow)?
>>> I'm not sure of an alternative, but I do recall that OSGi allows for
>>> dependencies on other packages; perhaps that could be useful?
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>>
>>> On 7/15/2011 8:29 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I've prepared the new RC (4) for UIMA Addons release.
>>>>
>>>> The following is a list of issues addressed in this release:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12316093
>>>>
>>>> The source zip and binary files are available here:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~tommaso/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4
>>>>
>>>> SVN Tag Checkout:
>>>> svn co
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/addons/tags/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4/
>>>>
>>>> Please cast your vote for UIMA Addons 2.3.1 release:
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>>>> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tommaso
>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA Addons RC4
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <ec...@tk.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de>.
Hi Marshall,
I am very interested in this. Some time back I mostly gave up on packaging UIMA components as OSGi bundles because of this. If you do not bundle all jars (*jikes*) and use package imports instead, the questions is: where do the dependencies come from? Who prepares the bundles and who installs them? Many JARs are not available as OSGi bundles.
-- Richard
Am 19.07.2011 um 16:13 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> I'll take a look at the OSGi build.
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 7/17/2011 12:16 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> Since this is (I think) the first time we're releasing the OSGi packaging of the
>> annotators, I think some work on their license/notice files might be needed,
>> because:
>>
>> - there are duplicate License files - one at the top level, and one in the
>> META_INF directory
>> - both of these are the plain vanilla license files. For projects which are
>> incorporating other libraries which are under other than the Apache v 2.0
>> license, those licenses have to be included.
>> - the NOTICE file is present in the META_INF directory, but is the plain one,
>> rather than the project specific one.
>>
>> Finally, I wonder if the OSGi packaging strategy is correct - in that it
>> "bundles" every dependency into the OSGi file. This certainly makes the file
>> easier to use, but if a user uses 2 OSGi components from UIMA, won't there be a
>> lot of unnecessary duplication (or does OSGi notice this and avoid it somehow)?
>> I'm not sure of an alternative, but I do recall that OSGi allows for
>> dependencies on other packages; perhaps that could be useful?
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>> On 7/15/2011 8:29 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I've prepared the new RC (4) for UIMA Addons release.
>>>
>>> The following is a list of issues addressed in this release:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12316093
>>>
>>> The source zip and binary files are available here:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~tommaso/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4
>>>
>>> SVN Tag Checkout:
>>> svn co
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/addons/tags/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4/
>>>
>>> Please cast your vote for UIMA Addons 2.3.1 release:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>>> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tommaso
>>>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Eckart de Castilho
Technical Lead
Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab
FB 20 Computer Science Department
Technische Universität Darmstadt
Hochschulstr. 10, D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany
phone [+49] (0)6151 16-7477, fax -5455, room S2/02/B117
eckartde@tk.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de
www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de
Web Research at TU Darmstadt (WeRC) www.werc.tu-darmstadt.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA Addons RC4
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
I'll take a look at the OSGi build.
-Marshall
On 7/17/2011 12:16 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> Since this is (I think) the first time we're releasing the OSGi packaging of the
> annotators, I think some work on their license/notice files might be needed,
> because:
>
> - there are duplicate License files - one at the top level, and one in the
> META_INF directory
> - both of these are the plain vanilla license files. For projects which are
> incorporating other libraries which are under other than the Apache v 2.0
> license, those licenses have to be included.
> - the NOTICE file is present in the META_INF directory, but is the plain one,
> rather than the project specific one.
>
> Finally, I wonder if the OSGi packaging strategy is correct - in that it
> "bundles" every dependency into the OSGi file. This certainly makes the file
> easier to use, but if a user uses 2 OSGi components from UIMA, won't there be a
> lot of unnecessary duplication (or does OSGi notice this and avoid it somehow)?
> I'm not sure of an alternative, but I do recall that OSGi allows for
> dependencies on other packages; perhaps that could be useful?
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 7/15/2011 8:29 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I've prepared the new RC (4) for UIMA Addons release.
>>
>> The following is a list of issues addressed in this release:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12316093
>>
>> The source zip and binary files are available here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~tommaso/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4
>>
>> SVN Tag Checkout:
>> svn co
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/addons/tags/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4/
>>
>> Please cast your vote for UIMA Addons 2.3.1 release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tommaso
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA Addons RC4
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Since this is (I think) the first time we're releasing the OSGi packaging of the
annotators, I think some work on their license/notice files might be needed,
because:
- there are duplicate License files - one at the top level, and one in the
META_INF directory
- both of these are the plain vanilla license files. For projects which are
incorporating other libraries which are under other than the Apache v 2.0
license, those licenses have to be included.
- the NOTICE file is present in the META_INF directory, but is the plain one,
rather than the project specific one.
Finally, I wonder if the OSGi packaging strategy is correct - in that it
"bundles" every dependency into the OSGi file. This certainly makes the file
easier to use, but if a user uses 2 OSGi components from UIMA, won't there be a
lot of unnecessary duplication (or does OSGi notice this and avoid it somehow)?
I'm not sure of an alternative, but I do recall that OSGi allows for
dependencies on other packages; perhaps that could be useful?
-Marshall
On 7/15/2011 8:29 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've prepared the new RC (4) for UIMA Addons release.
>
> The following is a list of issues addressed in this release:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12316093
>
> The source zip and binary files are available here:
> http://people.apache.org/~tommaso/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4
>
> SVN Tag Checkout:
> svn co
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/addons/tags/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4/
>
> Please cast your vote for UIMA Addons 2.3.1 release:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
> [ ] 0 Don't care
>
> Regards,
> Tommaso
>
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA Addons RC4
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
I noticed that svn commit 1143144 added
<mavenExecutorId>forked-path</mavenExecutorId>. There is no comment as to why
this was done - so I'm trying to remember. Was this done to allow the GPG
plugin to ask for the passphrase when signing? On my computer, I have some kind
of service installed with GPG that pops up a window to ask for that, so I don't
think I have needed that option, but adding it also seems to work for me, in any
case.
-Marshall
On 7/15/2011 8:29 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've prepared the new RC (4) for UIMA Addons release.
>
> The following is a list of issues addressed in this release:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12316093
>
> The source zip and binary files are available here:
> http://people.apache.org/~tommaso/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4
>
> SVN Tag Checkout:
> svn co
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/addons/tags/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4/
>
> Please cast your vote for UIMA Addons 2.3.1 release:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
> [ ] 0 Don't care
>
> Regards,
> Tommaso
>
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA Addons RC4
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Doc output for add-ons seems to be missing the html versions.
The docbook processing generates both pdf and html versions. When I look at the
binary assembly for the addon package, only the pdf version seems to be present.
I note also that the folder where the docs are is now "doc", whereas in 2.3.0 it
was "docs" ("s" at the end). I think this might be an intentional change, to
correspond better to the PEAR format - so I think the "doc" name is fine.
-Marshall
On 7/15/2011 8:29 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've prepared the new RC (4) for UIMA Addons release.
>
> The following is a list of issues addressed in this release:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12316093
>
> The source zip and binary files are available here:
> http://people.apache.org/~tommaso/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4
>
> SVN Tag Checkout:
> svn co
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/addons/tags/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4/
>
> Please cast your vote for UIMA Addons 2.3.1 release:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
> [ ] 0 Don't care
>
> Regards,
> Tommaso
>
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA Addons RC4
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
NOTICE file in the binary distribution is missing everything except the first 2
lines.
It should have I think the same contents as the 2.3.0 top level NOTICE file,
plus any changes needed for any new components added (solarcas, alchemyApi
annotator), plus any other changes in the other components.
-Marshall
On 7/15/2011 8:29 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've prepared the new RC (4) for UIMA Addons release.
>
> The following is a list of issues addressed in this release:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12316093
>
> The source zip and binary files are available here:
> http://people.apache.org/~tommaso/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4
>
> SVN Tag Checkout:
> svn co
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/addons/tags/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4/
>
> Please cast your vote for UIMA Addons 2.3.1 release:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
> [ ] 0 Don't care
>
> Regards,
> Tommaso
>
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA Addons RC4
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Tommaso, could you do the "roll-back" to the 2.3.1-SNAPSHOT? I have some
changes to do to the OSGi build.
-Marshall
On 7/15/2011 8:29 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've prepared the new RC (4) for UIMA Addons release.
>
> The following is a list of issues addressed in this release:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12316093
>
> The source zip and binary files are available here:
> http://people.apache.org/~tommaso/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4
>
> SVN Tag Checkout:
> svn co
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/addons/tags/uima-addons-2.3.1-rc4/
>
> Please cast your vote for UIMA Addons 2.3.1 release:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
> [ ] 0 Don't care
>
> Regards,
> Tommaso
>