Sorry for the delayed response, but I did want to comment on this. I think it's important to retain the ability to run the base maya modules. In fairness, I should mention that we are not currently using pymel, so my response is based on the idealogical rather the practical. It is an important case to consider, though, and if there is any way to preserve maya.cmds as maya.cmds, I think it's worth it. As I mentioned, we are not currently using pymel, but I like what I've seen so far and am considering the possibility. The thing is, we have a lot of existing code that is written using the autodesk maya modules directly. We've also done a fair amount of wrapping, though no where near as extensive as pymel. The more "custom" the install and the more overloads there are, the more complex it makes the decision to use pymel due to the potential problems.
-Judah On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Amorano <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Chad, > > While I also agree, if it improves upon pymel great, I would be weary > if there was a lot of hack-installation to do to get it working in a > non-out-of-the-box maya install. > > updating path variables is fine, hacking the base installs would be a > major pain for us and the overseas studios we share scripts with. > > If I read that wrong, great, hope I did, but it did seem as if you are > saying that actual mucking with the maya install would be required. > > To effect that change here would require two weeks (seriously) of > dealing with IS&T to get them to vet the install, test and push. One > of the many reasons I currently LOVE pymel is the 10 second install it > takes without needing to be an admin. ;p > > .02 > > Alexander Morano > Nickelodeon Animation > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/python_inside_maya > -- http://groups.google.com/group/python_inside_maya
