addons almost ready for next release candidate

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

The only thing I'd like to see checked by someone who know how, is that the OSGi
packaging is OK. 

The main other fixes are detailed in the commit logs, but in summary:

The binary builds (single-project assembly, aggregate-addons-assembly, PEAR
files, OSGi packagings) are selected per project by using the marker-file*
technique.  A common build is done, and those results are copied with some
additions / deletions for the various binary packagings.  For instance, the OSGi
does not include the documentation, whereas the PEAR packaging does.

The LICENSE / NOTICE / README files are now shared where feasible, so all the
various build targets get the proper version and there's just one place to
update when these change.

I made a pass thru the projects to locate special license/notice stanzas that
come from other Jars being distributed with each addon , and fixed that addon's
version of these files.  I also then aggregated all of these into the overall
uima-addons project as the composite License/Notice/Readme files.  Tika
Annotator was marked for cyrpto software (due to including Tika parts, which in
turn are marked that way), and the crypto exports page in Apache was updated.

The source-release build was changed to use the common Apache approach.  This
makes it more likely that the SVN source checkout and the source-release zip match.

Please post the results of testing the OSGi packaging :-) and then I'll spin a
release candidate.

-Marshall

Re: addons almost ready for next release candidate

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

It's posted here: http://uima.apache.org/staging/osgi.html

Comments welcome.

-Marshall

On 8/10/2011 10:10 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> I'm going to take a crack at writing a web page for this (even though I'm not
> the expert), just to get something down, which we can modify :-)
>
> I'll put it up on our web site under a "uima.apache.org/staging/..."
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 8/9/2011 1:27 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> +1 to add a page to our website somewhere that talks about OSGi bundling.  Since
>> I've never actually run any of the OSGi containers, I don't think I qualify to
>> do other than a "theory" page - and my theories are often not quite right :-) -
>> so it would be good if you and/or others that have run things in Felix etc., can
>> write something.
>>
>> I'm somewhat in favor of releasing the OSGi bundles as now packaged (once
>> they've been verified to work in this form), since Tommaso (for one) finds them
>> useful and uses them in some projects.
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>> On 8/9/2011 12:07 PM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>>> On 8/9/11 5:43 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>>> A broader OSGi "support" for UIMA could be done, where we make UIMA aware of
>>>> OSGi, and have it use OSGi "services" to load classes from bundles, etc., but
>>>> that hasn't been done.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if this is off-base with respect to use cases you know about...; any
>>>> testing appreciated:-)
>>> Well, I am still skeptical if it is a good idea to release this. Because it might
>>> simply not work for many.
>>>
>>> As soon as a user wants to mix the addon AEs with a custom AEs he needs
>>> to repackage everything.
>>>
>>> Why not directly tell our users, that they need to put everything into one
>>> bundle them self to get UIMA running in an OSGi container?
>>>
>>> Jörn
>>>

Re: addons almost ready for next release candidate

[Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>]

On 8/10/11 4:12 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> How about using the wiki? In that way non-contributors could contribute.

That is not true, everyone can create a patch to change our website files.

Jörn

Re: addons almost ready for next release candidate

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

How about using the wiki? In that way non-contributors could contribute.

-- Richard

Am 10.08.2011 um 16:10 schrieb Marshall Schor:

> I'm going to take a crack at writing a web page for this (even though I'm not
> the expert), just to get something down, which we can modify :-)
> 
> I'll put it up on our web site under a "uima.apache.org/staging/..."
> 
> -Marshall
> 
> On 8/9/2011 1:27 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> +1 to add a page to our website somewhere that talks about OSGi bundling.  Since
>> I've never actually run any of the OSGi containers, I don't think I qualify to
>> do other than a "theory" page - and my theories are often not quite right :-) -
>> so it would be good if you and/or others that have run things in Felix etc., can
>> write something.
>> 
>> I'm somewhat in favor of releasing the OSGi bundles as now packaged (once
>> they've been verified to work in this form), since Tommaso (for one) finds them
>> useful and uses them in some projects.
>> 
>> -Marshall
>> 
>> On 8/9/2011 12:07 PM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>>> On 8/9/11 5:43 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>>> A broader OSGi "support" for UIMA could be done, where we make UIMA aware of
>>>> OSGi, and have it use OSGi "services" to load classes from bundles, etc., but
>>>> that hasn't been done.
>>>> 
>>>> Let me know if this is off-base with respect to use cases you know about...; any
>>>> testing appreciated:-)
>>> Well, I am still skeptical if it is a good idea to release this. Because it might
>>> simply not work for many.
>>> 
>>> As soon as a user wants to mix the addon AEs with a custom AEs he needs
>>> to repackage everything.
>>> 
>>> Why not directly tell our users, that they need to put everything into one
>>> bundle them self to get UIMA running in an OSGi container?
>>> 
>>> 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: addons almost ready for next release candidate

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

I'm going to take a crack at writing a web page for this (even though I'm not
the expert), just to get something down, which we can modify :-)

I'll put it up on our web site under a "uima.apache.org/staging/..."

-Marshall

On 8/9/2011 1:27 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> +1 to add a page to our website somewhere that talks about OSGi bundling.  Since
> I've never actually run any of the OSGi containers, I don't think I qualify to
> do other than a "theory" page - and my theories are often not quite right :-) -
> so it would be good if you and/or others that have run things in Felix etc., can
> write something.
>
> I'm somewhat in favor of releasing the OSGi bundles as now packaged (once
> they've been verified to work in this form), since Tommaso (for one) finds them
> useful and uses them in some projects.
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 8/9/2011 12:07 PM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>> On 8/9/11 5:43 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> A broader OSGi "support" for UIMA could be done, where we make UIMA aware of
>>> OSGi, and have it use OSGi "services" to load classes from bundles, etc., but
>>> that hasn't been done.
>>>
>>> Let me know if this is off-base with respect to use cases you know about...; any
>>> testing appreciated:-)
>> Well, I am still skeptical if it is a good idea to release this. Because it might
>> simply not work for many.
>>
>> As soon as a user wants to mix the addon AEs with a custom AEs he needs
>> to repackage everything.
>>
>> Why not directly tell our users, that they need to put everything into one
>> bundle them self to get UIMA running in an OSGi container?
>>
>> Jörn
>>

Re: addons almost ready for next release candidate

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

+1 to add a page to our website somewhere that talks about OSGi bundling.  Since
I've never actually run any of the OSGi containers, I don't think I qualify to
do other than a "theory" page - and my theories are often not quite right :-) -
so it would be good if you and/or others that have run things in Felix etc., can
write something.

I'm somewhat in favor of releasing the OSGi bundles as now packaged (once
they've been verified to work in this form), since Tommaso (for one) finds them
useful and uses them in some projects.

-Marshall

On 8/9/2011 12:07 PM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> On 8/9/11 5:43 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> A broader OSGi "support" for UIMA could be done, where we make UIMA aware of
>> OSGi, and have it use OSGi "services" to load classes from bundles, etc., but
>> that hasn't been done.
>>
>> Let me know if this is off-base with respect to use cases you know about...; any
>> testing appreciated:-)
>
> Well, I am still skeptical if it is a good idea to release this. Because it might
> simply not work for many.
>
> As soon as a user wants to mix the addon AEs with a custom AEs he needs
> to repackage everything.
>
> Why not directly tell our users, that they need to put everything into one
> bundle them self to get UIMA running in an OSGi container?
>
> Jörn
>

Re: addons almost ready for next release candidate

[Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>]

On 8/9/11 5:43 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> A broader OSGi "support" for UIMA could be done, where we make UIMA aware of
> OSGi, and have it use OSGi "services" to load classes from bundles, etc., but
> that hasn't been done.
>
> Let me know if this is off-base with respect to use cases you know about...; any
> testing appreciated:-)

Well, I am still skeptical if it is a good idea to release this. Because 
it might
simply not work for many.

As soon as a user wants to mix the addon AEs with a custom AEs he needs
to repackage everything.

Why not directly tell our users, that they need to put everything into one
bundle them self to get UIMA running in an OSGi container?

Jörn

Re: addons almost ready for next release candidate

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

The OSGi packaging includes the uimaj-core jar.

It is suitable only for the special use case I think, where you want an
self-contained uima-pipeline consisting of one component, as a single OSGi
bundle.  I'm under the impression that some users are using this in this manner,
and if there are other use cases, I'm not sure how they are working.

We are including the Eclipse buddy stanzas in the MANIFEST.MF as before, so that
use should still be possible.  My understanding of OSGi class loading is that if
there is another bundle wired to a bundle, the wired bundle's classes have
priority over "local" classes contained in the bundle.  I think this means that
even though we might have included the uimaj-core.jar in the annotator bundle,
if it is used in an eclipse equinox container, with the uimaj-ep-runtime bundle,
with appropriate wiring, it might still work :-).


A broader OSGi "support" for UIMA could be done, where we make UIMA aware of
OSGi, and have it use OSGi "services" to load classes from bundles, etc., but
that hasn't been done.

Let me know if this is off-base with respect to use cases you know about...; any
testing appreciated :-)

-Marshall

On 8/9/2011 10:39 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> On 8/9/11 4:37 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> Please post the results of testing the OSGi packaging:-)  and then I'll spin a
>> release candidate.
>
> How is the OSGi packaging now done? How can the annotators be used in an OSGi
> environment?
>
> Jörn
>

Re: addons almost ready for next release candidate

[Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>]

On 8/9/11 4:37 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> Please post the results of testing the OSGi packaging:-)  and then I'll spin a
> release candidate.

How is the OSGi packaging now done? How can the annotators be used in an 
OSGi environment?

Jörn

Re: addons almost ready for next release candidate

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

Another overall change I forgot to include in the summarization: the OSGi builds
were changed to include the Jars, rather than unpacking them over each other,
which was overlaying same-named things (like LICENSE / NOTICE, etc.).

-Marshall

On 8/9/2011 10:37 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> The only thing I'd like to see checked by someone who know how, is that the OSGi
> packaging is OK. 
>
> The main other fixes are detailed in the commit logs, but in summary:
>
> The binary builds (single-project assembly, aggregate-addons-assembly, PEAR
> files, OSGi packagings) are selected per project by using the marker-file*
> technique.  A common build is done, and those results are copied with some
> additions / deletions for the various binary packagings.  For instance, the OSGi
> does not include the documentation, whereas the PEAR packaging does.
>
> The LICENSE / NOTICE / README files are now shared where feasible, so all the
> various build targets get the proper version and there's just one place to
> update when these change.
>
> I made a pass thru the projects to locate special license/notice stanzas that
> come from other Jars being distributed with each addon , and fixed that addon's
> version of these files.  I also then aggregated all of these into the overall
> uima-addons project as the composite License/Notice/Readme files.  Tika
> Annotator was marked for cyrpto software (due to including Tika parts, which in
> turn are marked that way), and the crypto exports page in Apache was updated.
>
> The source-release build was changed to use the common Apache approach.  This
> makes it more likely that the SVN source checkout and the source-release zip match.
>
> Please post the results of testing the OSGi packaging :-) and then I'll spin a
> release candidate.
>
> -Marshall
>
>