Hi Paolo,
just a thought: AFAIK fTools does not use 3rd party backends, so the
question of bulletproofness in conjunction with fTools IMHO should only
be raised for those algorithms that are currently in "QGIS
geoalgorithms". (Otherwise I fully agree: the rest should work flawlessly)
As I said I would be willing to port what has not been ported yet and/or
look over algorithms that do not work as expected.
In spring the question of icons has been raised, too. This should not be
forgetten, either.
Bernhard
Am 11.09.2015 um 12:52 schrieb Paolo Cavallini:
Il 11/09/2015 11:29, kimaidou ha scritto:
+1 for this !
Hi all,
thanks for raising this point, IMHO a serious one. I'm very much in
favour of removing redundancy. In this case, however, I think we better
be careful before removing fTools, because:
* people are used to it, and for one-shot analyses it is (slightly)
easier to run than Processing (weak argument)
* we do not have enough development resources to make Processing
bulletproof, particularly for 3rd party backends; therefore, we
encounter occasional problems, and we cannot guarantee a smooth user
experience in all cases (strong argument).
First issue can be solved, as suggested, by adding menu shortcuts to
Processing analyses, to mimic existing situation.
Second one is more serious: IMHO we really need a dedicated developer in
this area: any power user (=larger institutions) are willing to take it?
Similar things may be said for GDALTools.
All the best.
__________ Information from ESET Mail Security, version of virus signature
database 12248 (20150914) __________
The message was checked by ESET Mail Security.
http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
