[Biojava-l] Poll: is biojava a framework or library?

[Ben Stöver]

I would use "library", as well. To me the inversion of control (which is mostly not happening when using BioJava classes) is the key argument not to call it a framework.

Best
Ben



Spencer Bliven schrieb am 2018-12-11:
> We've previously referred to BioJava pretty consistently as a framework
> (e.g. the last paper was "BioJava: an open-source framework for
> bioinformatics in 2012"). However, in the current world of Angular and
> Rails, "framework" has required a more specific meaning relating to
> inversion of control and clear separation between the "frozen" framework
> code and the "hot" user-extensible part.

> On the other hand, a "library" sounds like a collection of procedures for a
> single task, and BioJava has a lot of breadth. We have lots of modules
> doing very different bioinformatics tasks, and user code would typically
> only include part of BioJava. We also have a few user interfaces and
> command line tools included, although I consider these more like example
> code then proper distributables.

> What do you think? Should we refer to BioJava as a 'library' in the future,
> or should we continue to use "framework" on the website and in publications?

> -Spencer

> Links:

>    -
>    https://www.programcreek.com/2011/09/what-is-the-difference-between-a-java-library-and-a-framework/
>    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework