UIMA sandbox component build

[Michael Baessler <mb...@michael-baessler.de>]

Hi,

when writing the first analysis component for the UIMA sandbox I came to 
the point where I have to provide a build for the component.
My first thought was to do this also with Maven but when trying to add 
the pom.xml some incompatibilities came to my mind.

- To package a analysis component as pear file we have to use eclipse, 
since we do not have a pear packager outside of eclipse. So users have 
to use eclipse if they want to package an analysis component.
- To package the analysis component correctly we have to put the 
resource and the code to the directories specified in the pear 
description (UIMA nature) layout but this layout does not match the 
Maven layout.

What do you think, how should be proceed.

1. Should we keep the UIMA nature layout for UIMA sandbox projects and 
add a Maven build that has a different file structure than suggested by 
Maven and used in the UIMA core framework.

2. Should we keep the UIMA nature layout for UIMA sandbox projects and 
build it with an ant build?

other suggestions?

-- Michael

Re: UIMA sandbox component build

[Adam Lally <al...@alum.rpi.edu>]

On 12/13/06, Michael Baessler <mb...@michael-baessler.de> wrote:
> > I thought the default PEAR directory layout was optional.  It would be
> > nice if the Maven layout were supported.
> I don't think the UIMA nature is optional. Some of the directories must
> exist but maybe we can change that...
>

I think only the .metadata directory is actually required... but we
should check with Lev.

> So our goal is to have a Maven based structure for the sandbox
> components and spend time to adapt the pear utilities on this.
> Again, let me check how expensive this is...
>

For the record, I don't know if it's critical to do this immediately.
I could be OK with a non-Maven build to start.  But it is an issue if
our PEAR Packager is not flexible enough to work with Maven, and we
should address that eventually.

-Adam

Re: UIMA sandbox component build

[Michael Baessler <mb...@michael-baessler.de>]

Adam Lally wrote:
> Hmmm.. how hard would it be to have a pear packager that runs outside
> of Eclipse?  It does seem like a poor dependency to have since we
> claim UIMA doesn't require Eclipse.
So in that case we can also think about creating a pear package during 
the build.
I will check if it is possible to redesign the code to have an API to 
build a pear package and
maybe to create a pear package during the build.
> I thought the default PEAR directory layout was optional.  It would be
> nice if the Maven layout were supported.
I don't think the UIMA nature is optional. Some of the directories must 
exist but maybe we can change that...

So our goal is to have a Maven based structure for the sandbox 
components and spend time to adapt the pear utilities on this.
Again, let me check how expensive this is...

-- Michael

Re: UIMA sandbox component build

[Adam Lally <al...@alum.rpi.edu>]

On 12/13/06, Michael Baessler <mb...@michael-baessler.de> wrote:
> - To package a analysis component as pear file we have to use eclipse,
> since we do not have a pear packager outside of eclipse. So users have
> to use eclipse if they want to package an analysis component.

Hmmm.. how hard would it be to have a pear packager that runs outside
of Eclipse?  It does seem like a poor dependency to have since we
claim UIMA doesn't require Eclipse.

> - To package the analysis component correctly we have to put the
> resource and the code to the directories specified in the pear
> description (UIMA nature) layout but this layout does not match the
> Maven layout.
>

I thought the default PEAR directory layout was optional.  It would be
nice if the Maven layout were supported.

-Adam