[Bioperl-l] Use of Root.pm versus RootI.pm

Hilmar Lapp hlapp at gmx.net
Wed Oct 4 14:25:23 UTC 2006

On Oct 3, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Chris Fields wrote:

> The constructor in Bio::Root::RootI lets one know that its use is
> deprecated, so you shouldn't have any cases of 'our qw 
> (Bio::Root::RootI)';

Don't confuse the constructor with the inheritance tree.

Interface classes should never be instantiated, hence the  
constructor, consistent with the documentation, should never get  

> there should be some way of inheriting Root directly or  
> indirectly.  I would
> say that any direct use of RootI is not good practice, though.

I don't know what you mean by 'directly' or 'indirectly' but  
inheritance from interfaces, and interfaces extending (inheriting  
from) other interfaces, is certainly standard practice. I'm not sure  
at all why it would be a bad one.

> For the current implementation we should only inherit  
> Bio::Root::Root, which
> implements RootI.

For the implementation classes, yes. For the interface classes, no.

: Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:-  hlapp at gmx dot net :

More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list