[Bioperl-l] Question about Bio::DB vs Bio::Index ...

[Jason Stajich]

Bill - looking forward to it.

IMHO:

Bio::Index is for locally formatted indexes of flatfiles.  Bio::DB should
be for remote databases like web databases or SQL databases.  So I would
vote for keeping it under Bio::Index.

-j

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, William S. Morgart wrote:

>
> I've created a new Bioperl object that provides an interface to a
> BLAST DB formatted for the WashU version. Currently the object
> (Bio::Index::Washu) is a subclass of Bio::Index but after reviewing
> the Bioperl object hierarchy I'm thinking that it should be redone as
> a subclass of Bio::DB ...
>
> So my question for the bioperl guru's is: what is the current wisdom
> for determining the choice of which object to subclass from,
> i.e. Bio::Index vs Bio::DB?
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Morgart
> morgarws at molbio.sbphrd.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at bioperl.org
> http://bioperl.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>

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