I understand your point Paolo, and I can't contribute to C++ coding now, so I can't support it practically. But:
- if Camilo can do it, he's welcome. I suppose he's conscious of what it means, also from a lon term support point of view... With GRASS module we have the same issues, am I wrong? - without a low-level interactions between QGis and SAGA, what is the real usefulness of this plugin? SAGA needs to be installed anyway (and it's easy), we already can import/export between the two's... Ok all the effort would be directed to avoid opening the SAGA interface. Mmm, I don't see such a great gain to justify the effort. Just two cents to share opinions. I'm just wondering.... giovanni 2011/3/31 Paolo Cavallini <cavall...@faunalia.it> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:31:14 -0400, Camilo Polymeris > <cpolyme...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Thanks for your comment. For those reasons and the ones I mentioned in > > the original mail, I think I'll be going the C++ route. > > Sorry to insist, but I think this is not a good choice. We already had > experiance with several non-core C++ plugins, some of them extremely > useful, and all of them are essentially unavailable to users. On the other > hand, it is probably unfeasible to add a dependency on SAGA. > > The single > > argument that seems to favour Python is the greater availability of > > coders. Giovanni and Gianluca have responded to this mail saying they > > would work on a Python version. No other C++ coders interested, yet :( > > This should mean something, even though it is not the crucial issue. > All the best. > -- > http://faunalia.it/pc >
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer