Ok, that's what I supposed. We're talking about two different things: your framework and the "geoprocessing framework" that started some time ago. I don't know if Camilo (or others) are still working actively on that. I can imagine that your experience with the "abstraction level" development for SEXTANTE will be an important plus to the development of such a framework... And I hope the development will converge on one of the twos, otherwise it would a waste of resources.
giovanni 2012/3/21 Sandro Santilli <s...@keybit.net> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 07:03:25PM +0200, Alexander Bruy wrote: > > Hmm... so if I understand correctly now we have two frameworks: > > ProcessingFramework (developed last year by Camilo Polymeris) > > and SEXTANTE framework. > > > > I didn't tested SEXTANTE framework yet, but seems we should > > decide and leave only one framework to avoid confusing and > > duplication of work > > +1 > > It feels like driving drunk whenever starting qgis: every functionality > is duplicated :D > > --strk; > > ,------o-. > | __/ | Delivering high quality PostGIS 2.0 ! > | / 2.0 | http://strk.keybit.net - http://vizzuality.com > `-o------' > > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
