On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Matthew Pocock wrote: > Mario Gianota wrote: > > > > The moment, the _very_ moment that bio-Java gets an IDE and an accompanying > > web page with some reassuring screenshots is pretty much when you'll see the > > user base expand to extremely healthy numbers. Until that day, bio-Java is > > for expert Java programmers only --which is a shame really, isn't it? > > > > > > --Mario Gianota > > I like that prophecy. The issue realy is over what visual paradigm to > chose, and which group of people have the time to glue it all together. > Things like javascript, python and beanshell can all be used as > scripting languages embedded within java apps. Some of the biojava > classes fit nicely into the traditional beans framework (did I just say > traditional about a java programming model?). Some of it does not, and > it would be inapropreate to shoehorn it in there - e.g. the symbol > tokenizers would suck for performance if they were beans.
> It's actualy quite easy to come up with a control-flow language that > would allow users to draw directional pipes connecting files to > processors to agregators to visualisation tools to output files etc. > etc. ad nausium and do sensible optimizations over this framework, but > who has the time to write the gui & glue code? > I think people at Cardiff wrote something called PSE which was a way of visually handling the flow of data to solve a particular problem. http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/PSEweb/overview.htm You have a repository of components (biojava) and you select the ones you need and direct the flow from one to the other. I agree that a flow based structure represented graphically should be intuiative and easy to use. I look forward to more input to this area. I think it is very important. Iain _______________________________________________ Biojava-l mailing list - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://biojava.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l
