[jira] [Comment Edited] (UIMA-2978) CustomResourceSpecifier has no support for resource meta data

["Richard Eckart de Castilho (JIRA)" <de...@uima.apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2978?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13678526#comment-13678526 ] 

Richard Eckart de Castilho edited comment on UIMA-2978 at 6/7/13 11:15 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ConfigurableDataResourceSpecifier adds the ResourceMetaData, but it also adds the DataResource. What I'd like to have (any probably the issue should be renamed accordingly) is a ConfigurableResourceSpecifier (without data).

I marked it as a bug, because the Resource interface specifies a getMetaData() method, so one should be able to assume (at least I did) that this should always filled by any specifier. Also, storing the configuration settings of a resource in the meta data should probably be preferred over having a second, less expressive parameter specification mechanism. Following that train of through one should probably be able to assume that any Resource is "configurable" and that a "ConfigurableResourceSpecified" wouldn't even be required as configurability should already be provided by "ResourceSpecifier".

It's not release critical, but I thinks its major enough to thing seriously about it (and it's the default). If there was a "normal", I'd have marked it as that, but the next lower level is "minor", which I think doesn't do it justice either.

                
      was (Author: rec):
    
ConfigurableDataResourceSpecifier adds the ResourceMetaData, but it also adds the DataResource. What I'd like to have (any probably the issue should be renamed accordingly) is a ConfigurableResourceSpecifier (without data).

I marked it as a bug, because the Resource interface specifies a getMetaData() method, so one should be able to assume (at least I did) that this should always filled by any specifier. Also, storing the configuration settings of a resource in the meta data should probably be preferred over having a second, less expressive parameter specification mechanism.

It's not release critical, but I thinks its major enough to thing seriously about it (and it's the default). If there was a "normal", I'd have marked it as that, but the next lower level is "minor", which I think doesn't go it justice either.

                  
> CustomResourceSpecifier has no support for resource meta data
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: UIMA-2978
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2978
>             Project: UIMA
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Core Java Framework
>            Reporter: Richard Eckart de Castilho
>
> The CustomResourceSpecifier provides a way of defining new custom types of Resources (e.g. *not* DataResources) which can be acquired via the ResourceManager. 
> The CustomResourceSpecifier does not support the usual ResourceMetaData, which includes support for the typical UIMA parameter configuration. It supports only single-valued String parameters.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira