On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 09:36, Nyall Dawson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 00:21, Martin Dobias wrote:
>
> >
> > I think for the time being we should still treat the 3D library as
> > having unstable API - so I wanted to check how others would feel about
> > having Python API for qgis_3d that
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 00:21, Martin Dobias wrote:
>
> I think for the time being we should still treat the 3D library as
> having unstable API - so I wanted to check how others would feel about
> having Python API for qgis_3d that would be marked as unstable, i.e.
> there may be changes between
Hi Matthias
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:47 PM Matthias Kuhn wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> I think that's a good move. Having an experimental Python 3D API is better
> than not having a Python 3D API. And if it's communicated clearly, it's
> every developers choice to build something on top of an unstable
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:21 PM Martin Dobias wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I have been thinking it would be good to finally have Python API also
> for qgis_3d library. Until now I have kept the 3D library
> intentionally without Python bindings so that it is possible to move
> the code around without
Hi all
I have been thinking it would be good to finally have Python API also
for qgis_3d library. Until now I have kept the 3D library
intentionally without Python bindings so that it is possible to move
the code around without being blocked by the API stability
requirement.
I think for the time
