alternate packaging for uima-as

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

The 2.3.0-incubating binary release of uima-as is packaged an "add-on"
and you need to download base uima binary release, and unzip the uima-as
over that base release.  This does things like combine example files and
directories, libs, etc.

We did this because of concerns about the size of the UIMA-AS package.

I think it is not a friendly way to package this, and because we intend
(at least for now) to have the uima-as add-on version track the base
version, I'd like to reconsider this.  My preference is to have the
uima-as binary distribution include the base UIMA distribution.

Other opinions?

-Marshall

Re: alternate packaging for uima-as

[Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>]

I like this process of separating a simple slim package from the entire
distribution package both for UIMA-AS and UIMA-base.
I am not sure I understood Marshall's ideas well, could you explain them
better?
Thanks.
Tommaso

2010/5/16 Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>
>
>
> +1.  Some possibilities:
> * We could do a special folder in the main binary distr.
> * We could add some special Jars:  e.g. uima-as-service-runtime-one-jar.jar
> **  We could make these special Jars available in the Maven repository
> system, so they could be "depended" on
>
> I'm willing to work on the POM packaging for this, if someone else can
> identify what Jars need to be included for this.
>
> We could also have something like this for UIMA-base - maybe two: one
> with and one without the CPM.
>
> -Marshall
>
> >
> > Jörn
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: alternate packaging for uima-as

[Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>]

> +1.  Some possibilities: 
> * We could do a special folder in the main binary distr.
>   

That would be fine for the way I use it.
> * We could add some special Jars:  e.g. uima-as-service-runtime-one-jar.jar
>   
I like the new lib folder, when I install a UIMA AS service I usually create
a new folder inside the uima as folder for my descriptors and just copy
all my additional jar files to the lib folder, then I start the whole
thing with the deployAsyncService.sh script.

Jörn

Re: alternate packaging for uima-as

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

On 5/16/2010 7:20 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> Marshall Schor wrote:
>> The 2.3.0-incubating binary release of uima-as is packaged an "add-on"
>> and you need to download base uima binary release, and unzip the uima-as
>> over that base release.  This does things like combine example files and
>> directories, libs, etc.
>>
>> We did this because of concerns about the size of the UIMA-AS package.
>>
>> I think it is not a friendly way to package this, and because we intend
>> (at least for now) to have the uima-as add-on version track the base
>> version, I'd like to reconsider this.  My preference is to have the
>> uima-as binary distribution include the base UIMA distribution.
>>   
> It would be nice to have a runtime distribution which only
> ships the minimal artifacts necessary to run a uima as
> service. That could of course also be just a folder in a
> complete uima as distribution to separate these artifacts
> from the others like documentation, eclipse plugins, etc.

+1.  Some possibilities: 
* We could do a special folder in the main binary distr.
* We could add some special Jars:  e.g. uima-as-service-runtime-one-jar.jar
**  We could make these special Jars available in the Maven repository
system, so they could be "depended" on

I'm willing to work on the POM packaging for this, if someone else can
identify what Jars need to be included for this.

We could also have something like this for UIMA-base - maybe two: one
with and one without the CPM.

-Marshall

>
> Jörn
>
>
>

Re: alternate packaging for uima-as

[Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>]

Marshall Schor wrote:
> The 2.3.0-incubating binary release of uima-as is packaged an "add-on"
> and you need to download base uima binary release, and unzip the uima-as
> over that base release.  This does things like combine example files and
> directories, libs, etc.
>
> We did this because of concerns about the size of the UIMA-AS package.
>
> I think it is not a friendly way to package this, and because we intend
> (at least for now) to have the uima-as add-on version track the base
> version, I'd like to reconsider this.  My preference is to have the
> uima-as binary distribution include the base UIMA distribution.
>   
It would be nice to have a runtime distribution which only
ships the minimal artifacts necessary to run a uima as
service. That could of course also be just a folder in a
complete uima as distribution to separate these artifacts
from the others like documentation, eclipse plugins, etc.

Jörn

Re: alternate packaging for uima-as

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

ping? other opinions?  -Marshall

On 5/15/2010 8:32 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> The 2.3.0-incubating binary release of uima-as is packaged an "add-on"
> and you need to download base uima binary release, and unzip the uima-as
> over that base release.  This does things like combine example files and
> directories, libs, etc.
>
> We did this because of concerns about the size of the UIMA-AS package.
>
> I think it is not a friendly way to package this, and because we intend
> (at least for now) to have the uima-as add-on version track the base
> version, I'd like to reconsider this.  My preference is to have the
> uima-as binary distribution include the base UIMA distribution.
>
> Other opinions?
>
> -Marshall
>
>
>
>
>