I've decided to go the algorithm provider plugin route for my scripts: https://anitagraser.com/2018/01/28/porting-processing-scripts-to-qgis3/
But I'm also thinking of my students whom I want to show how to write tools for QGIS. For many of them, it's their first contact with Python, so starting a provider plugin is well out of their comfort zone. On the other hand, the scripts are not very pythonic. Many beginners already had issues with the QGIS2 version of scripts. I think, they would have an easier time if they would only have to implement a QgsProcessingAlgorithm with the rest of the provider plugin complexity hidden from their sight. If that's possible. Regards, Anita On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 4:48 PM, G. Allegri <gioha...@gmail.com> wrote: > I know Alexander. The point was processing scripts and their future... > > giovanni > > Il 27 gen 2018 4:29 PM, "Alexander Bruy" <alexander.b...@gmail.com> ha > scritto: > >> It is possible to write algorithms using same approach as in core. Just >> create >> "provider plugin" and that's it. This functionality was here almost >> from the very >> beginning of the Processing. >> >> 2018-01-27 17:08 GMT+02:00 G. Allegri <gioha...@gmail.com>: >> > Honestly I think script syntax wasn't that bad. At least it was quite >> easy >> > for a set of power users, as I could verift during my past courses. >> > Anyway I agree with the rationale: having a unified, pythonic way, to >> write >> > both algorithms and scripts... well, might be the case to ultimately >> drop >> > scripts? >> > >> > Whatever the choice, we should make users aware of the current unclear >> > situation, that things are being discussed and still evolving. This will >> > prevent confusion and maybe encourage participation. >> > >> > How could this discussion be brought forward? My first question would >> be: do >> > we still need scripts? >> > >> > In any case thanks to Nyall and the others for the great work! ;) >> > >> > Giovanni >> > >> > >> > Il 27 gen 2018 12:15 PM, "Paolo Cavallini" <cavall...@faunalia.it> ha >> > scritto: >> >> >> >> Il 27/01/2018 00:39, Nyall Dawson ha scritto: >> >> >> >> > It's not too late to improve this for 3.x. Why don't we get the daily >> >> > Python users and experts involved here and come up with a more >> >> > Python-like approach to processing scripts? >> >> >> >> IMHO this is worth a wider announcement and call for help, if possible >> >> with some kickoff instructions. >> >> All the best. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu >> >> QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html >> >> https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=IT&q=qgis,arcgis >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> >> QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org >> >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > QGIS-Developer mailing list >> > QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org >> > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> >> >> >> -- >> Alexander Bruy >> > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >
_______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer