I understand your point Victor, and I agree that scripts was a clever idea. But:
- with the current shape of Processing (QGIS 3.0) I think the "syntactic sugar" provided by scripts has less relevance. As I can see from the refactoring, there's less automation in parameters conversions and management, and a few new "magic" context variables have been introduced. I think scripts now are too similar to plain geoalgorithms, and consequently the differences can become misleading and not easily understood. - syntactic sugar requires maintanance: if a new parameter is introduced, i parameters are added or changed, the corresponding translation method for scripts must be updated. - syntactic sugar requires doc maintanance, while Processing APIs documentation can be mostly automated. Anyway, this is a proposal to be discussed. Meanwhile I will try to estimate the work needed to drop (and adapt) the current implementations. PS: @Victor, it's nice to follow Processing's history! C++ (SAGA) -> Java (Sextante) -> Python (Processing) -> C++ (QGIS 3.0) :D All the best, Giovanni 2018-01-31 8:33 GMT+01:00 Victor Olaya <vola...@gmail.com>: > 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