[Bioc-devel] R6 class v.s. S4 class
The Biothings service looks interesting -- I had a look at the variant API and noticed that GRASP information is returned. We don't have that in a convenient form. However we do have plenty of variant and gene annotation and object classes that are relevant to these. We have had a discussion lately about R6 and one point was raised to the effect that reference classes (?setRefClass) in methods is better integrated with S4 and is probably to be preferred. Another comment raised the concern that reference semantics are generally unfamiliar to users and should be used only when fully justified. My question would be: Do you really need an object system to allow users to make effective use of the Biothings service/API? We can use httr and rjson to issue queries and translate their results. I am commenting with very superficial acquaintance with your package and hope that we can continue the discussion.
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Chunlei Wu <cwu at scripps.edu> wrote:
Hello BioC-dev group,
We are working on a new R package right now and plan to submit
it to Bioconductor soon. It's a unified R client for the collection of
BioThings APIs (http://biothings.io). Using R6 class, it makes a lot
sense to me as I'm coming from Python's OOP experience. It will be used
like this:
library(biothings)
gene_client <- BioThingsR6$new("gene")
gene_client$query("CDK2")
variant_client <- BioThingsR6$new("variant")
gene_client$query("dbsnp.rsid:rs1000")
Each "client" above is corresponding to a specific BioThings API, e.g. one
for gene, and one for variant. And we will have more "clients" as we are
expanding the number of BioThings API. The same R code should work with the
future APIs.
But if we use the traditional S4 class, it will be awkward as all
functions/methods are not "namespaced", we will need to define new
functions for each additional API. Something like this:
library(biothings)
geneQuery("CDK2")
variantQuery("dbsnp.rsid:rs1000")
I also want to mention that "query" is not the only method for each API
client, there will be several other methods for each client. It will
quickly make the function names messy if we go with the S4 option.
Anyway, we think we like R6 class better, but just want to get some
feedback here if the usage pattern using R6 class has been well-accepted in
the R community. Will the users feel cumbersome if they have to instantiate
the class first and then make the function calls? The majority of the
existing BioC package are indeed S4 class based, which makes us feel
hesitated.
Thanks,
Chunlei
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel