I like the idea, but i dont think it will mean less code, specially for defining the parameters and outputs. Why not keeping it for those that want to use it this way?
Before removing this (in case it's decided to do so), two things to notice: -- There were algorithms (built-in ones) defined this way, so they should be rewritten -- There is a little-known functionality that creates a new plugin from a set of scripts. It should be adapted as well, or removed. Thanks! 2018-01-30 21:41 GMT+01:00 G. Allegri <gioha...@gmail.com>: > I know there are much more important priorities in view of the QGIS 3.0 > release. > I will try to implement the idea of Geoalgorithms served by the script > provider and, in case, I'll commit a PR for testing and comments. > > Giovanni > > Il 29 gen 2018 16:44, "Anita Graser" <anitagra...@gmx.at> ha scritto: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:24 PM, G. Allegri <gioha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> What's your opinion >>> ? >>> >> >> + >> 1 for me, as stated in the original thread >> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2018-January/051511.html >> >> >> I think it will be good to unify the approaches. >> >> Regards, >> >> Anita >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
