Archiving annotations (was: [Biococoa-dev] Annotation)

Charles PARNOT charles.parnot at
Thu Feb 24 00:35:39 EST 2005

At 8:39 AM -0500 2/23/05, John Timmer wrote:
>I had a thought on handling the attributes last night.  One of the 
>dangers of allowing everything into an attribute is that cruft can 
>build up and the file size balloon, especially if a single sequence 
>is shuffled between applications.  It would be nice to have a 
>formalized way of ensuring that a minimal, informative sequence 
>object can be created.  So, I suggest that we code for three levels 
>of information:
>Base level:  minimum necessary to hold an attribute:  name, type, 
>range, notes.  Everything else is removed.  Guaranteed to work in 
>any BC-based app.
>App level: All objects are tested to determine whether the current 
>application has the class to work with is kept; everything else is 
>Verbose level:  everything's there, whether it can be used or not.
>This way, information that's been copied, dragged and dropped, etc. 
>can easily be streamlined in a way that's more appropriate for the 
>receiving app.

>At 5:43 PM +0100 2/23/05, Alexander Griekspoor wrote:
>>This scheme to save objects to disk is perfect. I like the 
>>additional BOOL 'shouldArchive'.
>This should perhaps be integrated with John's proposal on the three 
>archiving options, more on this later...

John's idea is indeed excellent!
One thing to keep in mind is if a file is used in 2 different apps, 
back and forth, then the user would probably not want to lose 
everything every time she switches from one app to the other and save.


Help science go fast forward:

Charles Parnot
charles.parnot at

Room  B157 in Beckman Center
279, Campus Drive
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305 (USA)

Tel +1 650 725 7754
Fax +1 650 725 8021
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Biococoa-dev mailing list