bix at sendu.me.uk
Tue Nov 7 11:07:23 EST 2006
Chris Fields wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2006, at 3:15 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
>> Nathan S. Haigh wrote:
>>> I agree, I was going to update the tests later this morning :-P Any
>>> thoughts about version() or should I just leave it be for now?
>> If its no trouble, go ahead with a version() method. Its nice to have in
>> any case. I'd suggest your latter option of 'there be a function that
>> does a compare internally so it can be accessed something like:
>> print "we have met the min version requirement\n" if
>> In fact, it ought to work with '34t26b3' as well (I guess the method
>> would try what it was given, and on failure, try again with the last 2
>> characters removed, then try both cases again with a decimal added if
>> there wasn't one).
> Is it possible to have the interface base class contain an abstract
> program_version() (or similar) method? One that could be implemented to
> just grab the current version of the program? I was thinking about
> something like this for the RNA-based wrappers I want to add but it
> seems to be something that most Run modules would benefit from. Just
> haven't had time to look into it with much detail.
What's wrong with version() ?
> Almost wonder if it would be easier to have all bioperl-run modules have
> a Run-specific Root object for common methods, regardless of the other
> interfaces used. Maybe something inheriting Bio::Root::Root...
What's wrong with Bio::Tools::Run::WrapperBase ?
More information about the Bioperl-l