Testing the eclipse update site

[Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>]

I tested the eclipse update site and works.

But one thing which seems a bit strange to me is
the names of the two projects:
- UIMA Runtime
- UIMA tools (includes Runtime)

When I want to install the tools it doesn't really matter if
I select the "UIMA Runtime" one or not, because the dependency
system will get it right for me.

Shouldn't we rename it to "UIMA Tools" ?

I also get a warning about unsigned content, maybe there a way to
sign it?

Jörn

Re: Testing the eclipse update site

[Tong Fin <to...@gmail.com>]

Thank Marshall for clarification.

I have the same opinion as Jörn about the wording (i.e. confusing).
By looking at other tools, I prefer something like:
 - UIMA Runtime (required)
 - UIMA tools (Optional)

If UIMA tools is only checked, Eclipse should show an error (I think) if
there is no UIMA Runtime installed.

If I already have UIMA Runtime installed, UIMA tools (includes Runtime) can
confuse me.

Tong

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 12/6/2011 2:02 PM, Tong Fin wrote:
> > I do only need the "runtime" plugin (nothing else) since I am developing
> > plugins that only use uima-core. Other tools are just overhead for me.
> > Even saying that, I prefer to have (I don't know how difficult to do
> that):
> >  - runtime plug-in
> >  - tools plugins without "runtime" plugin (that will require the above
> > runtime plugin)
>
> This is how it is set up now.  The tools *FEATURE* is where the tools
> plugins
> "depend" on the runtime.
> But each tool plugin doesn't, itself, include the runtime plugin, it just
> depends on it.
>
> -Marshall
>
>

Re: Testing the eclipse update site

[Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>]

On 12/6/2011 2:02 PM, Tong Fin wrote:
> I do only need the "runtime" plugin (nothing else) since I am developing
> plugins that only use uima-core. Other tools are just overhead for me.
> Even saying that, I prefer to have (I don't know how difficult to do that):
>  - runtime plug-in
>  - tools plugins without "runtime" plugin (that will require the above
> runtime plugin)

This is how it is set up now.  The tools *FEATURE* is where the tools plugins
"depend" on the runtime.
But each tool plugin doesn't, itself, include the runtime plugin, it just
depends on it.

-Marshall

Re: Testing the eclipse update site

[Tong Fin <to...@gmail.com>]

I do only need the "runtime" plugin (nothing else) since I am developing
plugins that only use uima-core. Other tools are just overhead for me.
Even saying that, I prefer to have (I don't know how difficult to do that):
 - runtime plug-in
 - tools plugins without "runtime" plugin (that will require the above
runtime plugin)

Tong

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho <
eckartde@tk.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:

> I always tended to think that the tools probably have to include another
> copy of the runtime since UIMA does not play too nicely with OSGi. I never
> quite understood why I would want to install a "runtime" when I could
> actually run any AE from within Eclipse - mind that was before there was
> the launcher plugin (which I still have to try out).
>
> -- Richard
>
> Am 05.12.2011 um 20:27 schrieb Marshall Schor:
>
> > Well, my intent is to reduce confusion :-) So, I'm willing to change
> this.
> >
> > Can we hear from others re: what they feel is the least confusing way to
> label
> > these?
> >
> > -Marshall
> >
> > On 12/5/2011 2:15 PM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> >> On 12/5/11 4:30 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> >>> The reason it is named with (includes Runtime) is to create an
> expectation that
> >>> the user just has to check this box.  If we left off this phrase,
> users would
> >>> likely wonder if they had to also check the Runtime.
> >>>
> >>> However, as you've noticed, it "just works" - whether or not the user
> checks
> >>> UIMA Runtime, so in some sense, it doesn't really matter - other than
> to reduce
> >>> some potential uncertainty in some users.  I guess I'd like to keep it
> as it is,
> >>> for that reason.
> >>
> >> This is not an eclipse convention and I wonder if this really reduces
> >> uncertainty.
> >>
> >> I went to this site with the intention to install both the Runtime and
> Tools
> >> plugins, now it made
> >> me wonder for a moment if the Tools in some way include a different
> Runtime
> >> than the one above.
> >>
> >> I then tried both and the dependencies on the next page made it clear
> to me
> >> that it simply
> >> means that Tools has a dependency on Runtime which is automatically
> resolved
> >> for me,
> >> since that is just expected behavior such a note can also be confusing.
> >>
> >> Jörn
> >>
>
> 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: Testing the eclipse update site

[Richard Eckart de Castilho <ec...@tk.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de>]

I always tended to think that the tools probably have to include another copy of the runtime since UIMA does not play too nicely with OSGi. I never quite understood why I would want to install a "runtime" when I could actually run any AE from within Eclipse - mind that was before there was the launcher plugin (which I still have to try out).

-- Richard

Am 05.12.2011 um 20:27 schrieb Marshall Schor:

> Well, my intent is to reduce confusion :-) So, I'm willing to change this.
> 
> Can we hear from others re: what they feel is the least confusing way to label
> these?
> 
> -Marshall
> 
> On 12/5/2011 2:15 PM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>> On 12/5/11 4:30 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> The reason it is named with (includes Runtime) is to create an expectation that
>>> the user just has to check this box.  If we left off this phrase, users would
>>> likely wonder if they had to also check the Runtime.
>>> 
>>> However, as you've noticed, it "just works" - whether or not the user checks
>>> UIMA Runtime, so in some sense, it doesn't really matter - other than to reduce
>>> some potential uncertainty in some users.  I guess I'd like to keep it as it is,
>>> for that reason.
>> 
>> This is not an eclipse convention and I wonder if this really reduces
>> uncertainty.
>> 
>> I went to this site with the intention to install both the Runtime and Tools
>> plugins, now it made
>> me wonder for a moment if the Tools in some way include a different Runtime
>> than the one above.
>> 
>> I then tried both and the dependencies on the next page made it clear to me
>> that it simply
>> means that Tools has a dependency on Runtime which is automatically resolved
>> for me,
>> since that is just expected behavior such a note can also be confusing.
>> 
>> Jörn
>> 

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: Testing the eclipse update site

[Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>]

Well, my intent is to reduce confusion :-) So, I'm willing to change this.

Can we hear from others re: what they feel is the least confusing way to label
these?

-Marshall

On 12/5/2011 2:15 PM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> On 12/5/11 4:30 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> The reason it is named with (includes Runtime) is to create an expectation that
>> the user just has to check this box.  If we left off this phrase, users would
>> likely wonder if they had to also check the Runtime.
>>
>> However, as you've noticed, it "just works" - whether or not the user checks
>> UIMA Runtime, so in some sense, it doesn't really matter - other than to reduce
>> some potential uncertainty in some users.  I guess I'd like to keep it as it is,
>> for that reason.
>
> This is not an eclipse convention and I wonder if this really reduces
> uncertainty.
>
> I went to this site with the intention to install both the Runtime and Tools
> plugins, now it made
> me wonder for a moment if the Tools in some way include a different Runtime
> than the one above.
>
> I then tried both and the dependencies on the next page made it clear to me
> that it simply
> means that Tools has a dependency on Runtime which is automatically resolved
> for me,
> since that is just expected behavior such a note can also be confusing.
>
> Jörn
>

Re: Testing the eclipse update site

[Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>]

On 12/5/11 4:30 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> The reason it is named with (includes Runtime) is to create an expectation that
> the user just has to check this box.  If we left off this phrase, users would
> likely wonder if they had to also check the Runtime.
>
> However, as you've noticed, it "just works" - whether or not the user checks
> UIMA Runtime, so in some sense, it doesn't really matter - other than to reduce
> some potential uncertainty in some users.  I guess I'd like to keep it as it is,
> for that reason.

This is not an eclipse convention and I wonder if this really reduces 
uncertainty.

I went to this site with the intention to install both the Runtime and 
Tools plugins, now it made
me wonder for a moment if the Tools in some way include a different 
Runtime than the one above.

I then tried both and the dependencies on the next page made it clear to 
me that it simply
means that Tools has a dependency on Runtime which is automatically 
resolved for me,
since that is just expected behavior such a note can also be confusing.

Jörn

Re: Testing the eclipse update site

[Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>]

On 12/5/2011 5:35 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> I tested the eclipse update site and works.
>
> But one thing which seems a bit strange to me is
> the names of the two projects:
> - UIMA Runtime
> - UIMA tools (includes Runtime)
>
> When I want to install the tools it doesn't really matter if
> I select the "UIMA Runtime" one or not, because the dependency
> system will get it right for me.
>
> Shouldn't we rename it to "UIMA Tools" ?

The reason it is named with (includes Runtime) is to create an expectation that
the user just has to check this box.  If we left off this phrase, users would
likely wonder if they had to also check the Runtime. 

However, as you've noticed, it "just works" - whether or not the user checks
UIMA Runtime, so in some sense, it doesn't really matter - other than to reduce
some potential uncertainty in some users.  I guess I'd like to keep it as it is,
for that reason.
>
> I also get a warning about unsigned content, maybe there a way to
> sign it?

I once looked into signing.  I would certainly like to get this "signed",
somehow.  I will open up a topic about this on release-discuss, as this is an
Apache-wide issue.  Here's what I remember:

1) The Jar signing being checked for by Eclipse is not the same as the PGP key
signing we use at Apache, and requires some kind of a "certificate" issued by a
recognized certifying organization (for a fee).  There has been some discussion
previously at Apache about getting such a certificate for Apache projects to
use, but I don't think it has been done, and I don't think an effective way has
been worked out for projects to "share" such a certificate.

2) At one point, there was a thread which said that the way the signed Jars were
used in Eclipse caused (somewhat significant??) performance issues.  This may
now be no longer true....

-Marshall