I would use "library", as well. To me the inversion of control (which is mostly not happening when using BioJava classes) is the key argument not to call it a framework.
Best Ben Spencer Bliven schrieb am 2018-12-11: > We've previously referred to BioJava pretty consistently as a framework > (e.g. the last paper was "BioJava: an open-source framework for > bioinformatics in 2012"). However, in the current world of Angular and > Rails, "framework" has required a more specific meaning relating to > inversion of control and clear separation between the "frozen" framework > code and the "hot" user-extensible part. > On the other hand, a "library" sounds like a collection of procedures for a > single task, and BioJava has a lot of breadth. We have lots of modules > doing very different bioinformatics tasks, and user code would typically > only include part of BioJava. We also have a few user interfaces and > command line tools included, although I consider these more like example > code then proper distributables. > What do you think? Should we refer to BioJava as a 'library' in the future, > or should we continue to use "framework" on the website and in publications? > -Spencer > Links: > - > > https://www.programcreek.com/2011/09/what-is-the-difference-between-a-java-library-and-a-framework/ > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework _______________________________________________ Biojava-l mailing list - [email protected] http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l
