Here is my opinion about this: I think it might not be a good idea to get rid of the GRASS plugin and leave only Processing, since there are some tools that do not fit into Processing, So, at least for this tools, there should be a GRASS plugin to make the available fro QGIS.
Having said that, I also think that the GRASS modules that are actually processes (the have input and output and do some computation) are much better in Processing, and it would be better to keep them only there, to avoid confusion. For this, I guess that first we need to implement some mechanism in Processing to handle layers in a GRASS database (maybe not a easy task), so they are used just as a normal layer. That would provide a seamless inegration, and allow Processing to do all that a GRASS user might need in term of analysis. In this scenario, I do not see a reason to use the GRASS plugin for, let's say, calculating a slope layer from a DEM, when you can do it in Processing. But until we have that, I guess it's better to keep it, provided that there are people that still need it (basically people with GRASS databases, as it has been said above) my 2 cents 2014-03-27 12:49 GMT+01:00 Blumentrath, Stefan <[email protected]>: > Dear all, > > From my user perspective (I am using both GRASS and QGIS, or the other way > around, depends on topic), processing is not really a replacement for the > GRASS plugin. > It is handy and probably better for those who do not use GRASS but are > interested in single functions / modules. > > Yet, once you have a GRASS database with a considerable amount of data, the > GRASS plugin is very valuable for accessing those data in QGIS (e.g. for > cartography). Also users with no or little GRASS experience benefit from the > GRASS plugin in cases where they have access to a GRASS database. > That way they can work on it without acquainting themselves with a "new" GIS > in depth... > > Concluding, if you have the possibility to maintain it, keep the GRASS plugin > in QGIS! > > Cheers > Stefan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paolo Cavallini > Sent: 27. mars 2014 12:41 > To: Nathan Woodrow > Cc: qgis-developer; grass-dev > Subject: Re: [Qgis-developer] GRASS & QGIS: the future > > Il 27/03/2014 12:33, Nathan Woodrow ha scritto: >> I would vote for dropping the plugin and just updating the processing >> plugin. Having both ways is bad for us and bad for users, even worse >> when some functions are missing from one but not in the other. > > I understand well the point; however, the plugin has additional functions, > e.g.: > * a grass shell > * a grass data browser > * a grass digitizing environment. > Whether these are important or not, it's a matter of users. > All the best. > > -- > Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu > QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
