[Bioperl-l] interfaces

[Jason Stajich]

We've gone back and forth on this.

I think we settled on implementations which do not rely on any internal
data structures (i.e. which only use methods defined by the interface or
the interface's superclass(es) ) are okay.

Arguments pro and con are still welcomed of course.

-jason

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Richard Adams wrote:

> I was wondering if there was any aim or intent to make interface classes
> purely abstract?
>
>  It seems that some interfaces (e.g., RangeI )contain extensive
>  implementation and others
>
> e.g., Bio::RichSeqI are indeed abstract. As far as I know it's deemed A
> Good Idea to have
>
> interfaces abstract.
>
> Some changes would just involve creating a base class implementing the interface, which I'd volunteer
>
> to do, at least for the classes I use regularly.
>
> Or is it too late to do this now without breaking everyone's code?
>
> Richard
>
> Dr Richard Adams
> Bioinformatician,
> Psychiatric Genetics Group,
> Medical Genetics,
> Molecular Medicine Centre,
> Western General Hospital,
> Crewe Rd West,
> Edinburgh UK
> EH4 2XU
>
> Tel: 44 131 651 1084
> richard.adams at ed.ac.uk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at portal.open-bio.org
> http://portal.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>

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