[Bioperl-l] StandAloneFasta::version

Nathan Haigh n.haigh at sheffield.ac.uk
Tue Nov 7 12:48:56 EST 2006

Chris Fields wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
> ...
>>> 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() ?
> Didn't realize there was a version() already.
>>> 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 ?
> I agree that WrapperBase fulfills most of this functionality.   
> However, don't a few bioperl-run wrappers 'roll their own', i.e. not  
> implement WrapperBase?  Requiring all bioperl-run module inherit the  
> same Run-specific base object would integrate them a bit more and  
> distinguish them from the core modules (which would inherit  
> Bio::Root::Root).  Anyway, it's just a suggestion.
> Christopher Fields
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> Lab of Dr. Robert Switzer
> Dept of Biochemistry
> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>From what i've seen of Bioperl-run there is not a whole lot of
consistency between modules. I think it would be a good idea to have all
run modules inherit WrapperBase - would this be a big change??


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list