[Bioperl-l] conceeding to has-a location

[Jason Stajich]

I think the discussion generated a number of good points.  I was
ambivalent about separating the Location initially, but I can
definitely see a advantages to has-a location now as well.  

So I agree that this model seems the best.  I don't know if Object
creation penalties will come back to haunt us, but this model seems the
most biologically applicable.

As for exception throwing, in the simple case no exceptions thrown ie
everything the bioperl currently supports.   

If we want to later on define a structure for delegating start/end
calculation (DetermineStartEndFromFuzzyLocationAdaptor) then maybe we can
do that and exceptions could be thrown by that model.   

However, in the current model I'd like to rely on start/end to be callable
even if it is delegating to the Location object and thus no exceptions at
this time.   Are we going to end up ripping this out and rewriting again?  

I will update the wiki text to reflect these agreements and we can see
where we stand.  I'm hoping we can have a reasonable agreement by the
Thurs so the coding can begin.

-Jason
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Ewan Birney wrote:

> 
> Ok. It looks like I have to conceed the has-a location, as long as I am
> allowed to return $self for C extensions for ensembl ;)
> 
> 
> I think I have "won" on the no exception throwing (???)
> 
> 
> Jason/Hilmar - what do you think?
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Ewan Birney. Mobile: +44 (0)7970 151230, Work: +44 1223 494420
> <birney@ebi.ac.uk>. 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l@bioperl.org
> http://bioperl.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
> 

Jason Stajich
jason@chg.mc.duke.edu
Center for Human Genetics
Duke University Medical Center 
http://www.chg.duke.edu/