[Bioperl-l] 1.0.2

[Jason Stajich]

> Not at this time. But there's the biodatabase object and PrimarySeqI
> method addition pending, and dumping OMIM into BioSQL will probably
> cause some changes too until it really works.
>
> I of course have no problem with keeping bioperl-db as
> Bioperl-1.1-dependent for the time being. I have no idea though where
> else it is used. (Any show hands here? Anyone's got a problem with
> bioperl-1.1 dependency for updates?)
>

I really think this is safest - the current incarnation of bioperl-db is
really "new" and maintaining a back port to bioperl-1.0 is going to be
more trouble than it is work as far as I can see.

> Generally adding a method to an API doesn't break it in Perl (as
> opposed to Java). The problem is on one hand a matter of taste, on the
> other hand if someone builds an application assuming that added
> interface method is fine to rely on being implemented by every
> implementor of the interface, that may cause a real problem. Maybe
> this is paranoid, maybe it's not, I'm not sure. If you ask me for a
> vote, I'd be strict and not do it.
>

Let's just be strict, not make an major changes to the branch, and for
bioperl-db to really be working with the main-trunk code.  If someone
thinks this is a bad assumption speak up, otherwise I'll be putting 1.0.2
out without this support.

> 	-hilmar
>


-- 
Jason Stajich
Duke University
jason at cgt.mc.duke.edu