Hi Bernhard
On 09/14/2015 09:39 AM, Bernhard Ströbl wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > Am 14.09.2015 um 09:31 schrieb Matthias Kuhn: >> Hi Bernhard, >> >> The current code redundancy does have some severe issues like: >> >> * Algorithms may give different results from the vector menu and >> processing (although both labelled similar, [QGIS] Geoprocessing) > > I would need hints on tickets addressing such problems. If that is > really the case who is going to decide what the "right" result is? > Alternatively we could keep both but label them differently. I don't know, maybe Paolo has some experiences? For now, I would just dump one of the two implementations and if problems surface decide case-by-case about the procedure (duplication or introduction of an additional parameter). > >> * Bugs need to be fixed twice > > are they currently? > >> * Features need to be implemented twice > > are they currently? My comments were targetting the current situation ;) -- Matthias > > Bernhard >> >> If I remember right, somebody was working on a C++ implementation of >> fTools recently. Does that ring a bell somewhere? It would be a pitty if >> you work on this and a new implementation is merged at the same time. >> >> After this question has been answered, a big +1 from my side to work on >> this. >> And another +1 if we get some unittests for the algorithms. They are >> actually perfect candidates for unittests. >> >> Kind regards >> Matthias >> >> On 09/14/2015 09:05 AM, Bernhard Ströbl wrote: >>> 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 >> >> >> > > > __________ Information from ESET Mail Security, version of virus > signature database 12248 (20150914) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET Mail Security. > http://www.eset.com > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
