[Bioperl-l] Contributing to biomoose

Robert Buels rmb32 at cornell.edu
Tue Jul 21 04:03:26 UTC 2009

Siddhartha Basu wrote:
> Of course it there is a core biomoose distribution,  then that namespace
> makes a lot of sense for non-core modules. The philosophy also goes
> nicely with the organization of current MooseX modules. And if something
> in Bio::MooseX(really futuristic) becomes heavily important it can be
> integrated into the core Bio::Moose namespace. The same thing is also
> happening with MooseX::Attribute module. 

Bio::Moose isn't a good namespace for the long term.  For experimenting 
around with Moosey implementation techniques it's fine, but before you 
guys go putting TOO much code into it, consider what its future is going 
to be.  Moose is an implementation technology, and modules should be 
named for what they do, not how they're implemented.

We already know Moose is far superior for organizing and expressing 
designs, so what I would be shooting for here would be some deep, 
focused implementations of certain aspects.  It's starting to sound like 
it's getting a little bigger than just playing around.


Robert Buels
Bioinformatics Analyst, Sol Genomics Network
Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research
Tower Rd
Ithaca, NY  14853
Tel: 503-889-8539
rmb32 at cornell.edu

More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list