[QGIS-Developer] Get rid of Processing scripts in favour of plain alogrithms

[G. Allegri]

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 <volayaf at 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 <giohappy at 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" <anitagraser at gmx.at> ha scritto:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:24 PM, G. Allegri <giohappy at 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 at lists.osgeo.org
> > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20180131/b3e15388/attachment.html>