Difference between revisions of "Talk:GBrowse syn"
From GMOD
(New page: == Upcoming Hackathon (7/11/2010) == Here are some ideas for things to work on w.r.t GBsyn dev. etc. === User interface === * The tracks don't 'feel' like GB 2.0 tracks, and are describ...) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | |||
== Upcoming Hackathon (7/11/2010) == | == Upcoming Hackathon (7/11/2010) == | ||
Line 6: | Line 5: | ||
=== User interface === | === User interface === | ||
* The tracks don't 'feel' like GB 2.0 tracks, and are described in the manual as 'gbrowse-like'. Why can't we have proper GBrowse tracks? Wouldn't this allow a lot of code to be refactored? | * The tracks don't 'feel' like GB 2.0 tracks, and are described in the manual as 'gbrowse-like'. Why can't we have proper GBrowse tracks? Wouldn't this allow a lot of code to be refactored? | ||
− | + | * I'd like to use my existing track configuration to configure tracks in GBsyn. Additional options could be added to the GBsyn conf to turn tracks off, because its a pain to reconfigure them all from scratch again (especially using GBrowse 1.7 syntax) for GBsyn. | |
=== Behind the scenes === | === Behind the scenes === | ||
* Oh, also, could you go ahead and make GBrowse_syn run under fastcgi? kthxbai | * Oh, also, could you go ahead and make GBrowse_syn run under fastcgi? kthxbai |
Revision as of 15:47, 4 November 2010
Upcoming Hackathon (7/11/2010)
Here are some ideas for things to work on w.r.t GBsyn dev. etc.
User interface
- The tracks don't 'feel' like GB 2.0 tracks, and are described in the manual as 'gbrowse-like'. Why can't we have proper GBrowse tracks? Wouldn't this allow a lot of code to be refactored?
- I'd like to use my existing track configuration to configure tracks in GBsyn. Additional options could be added to the GBsyn conf to turn tracks off, because its a pain to reconfigure them all from scratch again (especially using GBrowse 1.7 syntax) for GBsyn.
Behind the scenes
- Oh, also, could you go ahead and make GBrowse_syn run under fastcgi? kthxbai