Does MBF Bio.dll supports Silverlight Application development?

Apr 20, 2010 at 8:43 AM
Edited Apr 20, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Hello guys,

I tried referencing Bio.dll to my Silverlight application, regrettably it failed.  As Mbf wasn't compiled against the Silverlight runtime. Will there be a MBF.Silverlight class library version in the near future? 

 

Cheers

Kelric

Coordinator
Apr 21, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Greetings Kelric -

This is the second discussion topic related to MBF support for SilverLight, so obviously this is an important issue to the community.  I'll reiterate a couple points made in the previous post, and then add a bit more to the discussion.  Others are welcome to chime in and provide their input as well.

During our development of MBF, we decided to take a hard dependency on .NET 4.0, specifically the use of Parallel Extensions to enable more effective use of multi-core machines when performing sequence alignment and/or assembly.  The capabilities of SL4 were not as well understood, and in effect we elected to maximize the benefit of the  .NET 4 feature set over the provision of a framework targeting the subset of features available in Mono or SL4.  We had every intention of revisiting compat for SL4 (as well as the  .NET 4.0 Client Profile subset) via a refactor of the framework into a set assemblies targeting each version for MBF v1.

Unfortunately, we lost some key folks during the past few months and had to make some tough trade offs.  One of these was the decision to post-pone the effort to re-factor the library into a Client Profile, Silverlight4 and full .NET 4.0 set of assemblies.  This is clearly a first order of business for us after we release the final v1 release of MBF in June.  However, we would welcome the community to investigate, prototype and even submit code to be considered that would achieve this result.  The beauty of this project is that we hope to enable the community to advance the platform in areas that it deems most important, without having to rely upon Microsoft to do the work.

At a minimum I would ask that you please submit an issue on this topic so that it can receive votes and be sure to get addressed in a timely fashion.  I would do it myself, but I really don't want to take the credit:).  Perhaps there are other developers out there who can contribute their expertise in solving this problem as well.

Thanks for your input - it is much appreciated and is key to making the platform more useful to the community.

Mike

Apr 21, 2010 at 12:37 AM

As in my other post - thumbs up for SL support. I already started to compile MBF against SL4. It took me already a couple of hours and I;m still not finished yet. I create mock-ups to cover the missing API's and to get a nice overview about what is missing. So far it's not just TPL. Beside some trivial stuff like ASCIIEncoding and StopWatch, we miss also a lot stuff from the Serialization namespace or the whole System.IO.Compression. I could provide a complete list of SL show stopper as soon as I get MBF compiled.

I created a item in the issue tracker. http://mbf.codeplex.com/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=10671 

Jan

Apr 21, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Thanks for the response.

Indeed, making MBF SL compatible is a non-trivial task. I tried extracting the IO parser package off the MBF library few days back too, but gave up as it was draining too much of my time. heh heh. Yep me too encountered lots of issues related to the serialization namespace during the process.

Definitely would be nice to have the MBF parsers port onto a separate dll for the next release :)

 

Jul 24, 2010 at 11:50 PM

What about grabbing the missing code from Mono? In the past I've used Mono fragments to cover the gaps between .NET and .NET Compact.