[Bioperl-l] SearchIO speed up

Hilmar Lapp hlapp at gmx.net
Fri Aug 18 09:46:04 EDT 2006


Your are fixing Bioperl 1.x, right? :-) So, if you fixed it as much  
as you could without turning Bioperl 1.x into Bioperl 2.x it is  
resolved, or if there is no such fix, won't fix.

If you have ideas though for how to do it better, just you can't  
implement those thoughts because of compatibility constraints, it's  
always worthwhile capturing them and write them down on e.g. a wiki  
page, such as one that collects thoughts towrds Bioperl 2.x, or call  
it Bioperl-Warp9 ;)

	-hilmar


On Aug 18, 2006, at 2:50 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:

> Hilmar Lapp wrote:
>> I wouldn't do any of this. It is at best unexpected code with
>> expected behavior, and from there it only gets worse. I don't see why
>> the loss of standard constructor implementation and behavior is worth
>> a speed-up of less than several fold.
> [...]
>> I.e., if you talk about drastic architecture changes you are no
>> longer talking about Bioperl as we know it ("1.x").
>
> Well, we come back to my original question in this thread. When can we
> consider the priority list item resolved? Is it resolved when we've  
> sped
> it up as much as possible without doing anything drastic ('resolved
> fixed')? Or is it only resolved when we've done everything we can  
> think
> of to speed it up, even drastic things? In the later case, do we just
> leave it 'verified' until some possible Bioperl 2.0, or do we instead
> just say 'resolved wontfix'?
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>

-- 
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:-  hlapp at gmx dot net :
===========================================================







More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list