> I understand that instead of having one dataset with multiple files you are
> planning to use existing datasets and combine them in a ‘collection’.  My
> concerns are:

This needs to be fleshed out much more, but this is not exactly what
we are thinking. The main change is to make it possible for a history
to contain items other than datasets. Groups of datasets would be one
such thing. Multifile datasets would be another. Workflow invocations
a third (needed to support extensions to the workflow system we are
proposing).

> 1. Our data consists of 200-8000 files, can you imagine how many datasets
> we’ll end up with? It will be a mess.

Yes, it would, which is why there does need to be the concept of a
homogenous dataset collection to support this.

> 5. We are already using the “m:xxx” type datasets (thanks John) in our
> project, I guess you don’t even have a timeframe for implementing the
> “collection” concept? I’m sure that for many projects using multi file
> datasets is a requirement now, not in ‘years’ time.

We recognize the need, but implementing these using the existing
datasets with a prefix on the extension, and then special casing all
over the place, is not a maintainable solution going forward. They
should be implemented as their own entity.

___________________________________________________________
Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
in your mail client.  To manage your subscriptions to this
and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:

  http://lists.bx.psu.edu/

Reply via email to