<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:11:50 -0700</span><br><div>> From: larrys@dakotacarto.com<br>> To: qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org<br>> Subject: [Qgis-developer] QgsLegendInterface binding updates, or QgsLegend overhaul?<br>> <br>> Hi,<br>> <br>> I added to QgsLegendInterface today [0] and noticed how lacking the<br>> Python binding is when working with the legend, compared to the number<br>> of methods that could be exposed from QgsLegend. Looks like<br>> QgsLegendInterface really hasn't been updated since QGIS 1.5.<br>> <br>> Users/plugin devs have asked for better means of working with the<br>> legend, so my questions are:<br>> <br>> * Should there be an effort to bring many of the reasonable-to-expose<br>> methods from QgsLegend to QgsLegendInterface for 2.0 release?<br>> <br>> * OR, should QgsLegend be overhauled first (as there has been talk about)?<br>> <br>> [0] https://github.com/qgis/Quantum-GIS/commit/8260eab94ba52ecd9faea59632c61070c2aea70c<br>> , http://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/36937<br>> <br>> Regards,<br>> <br>> Larry<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Qgis-developer mailing list<br>> Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org<br>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer<br></div><div><br></div><div>I'm new to this and have missed the talk of a QgsLegend overhaul so I have no knowledge <span style="font-size: 10pt;">of</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">the scope/</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">reasons of the proposed changes. </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">To provide further context I am developing a </span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">python plugin for use in a corporate environment where I can only target stable releases (1.8/2.0).</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Generally providing access to an appropriate API will reduce the need for hackish code.</span></div><div><br></div><div>The change you have made will negate the current need to query the QTreeView to determine</div><div>if the active layer is the only selected layer.</div><div><br></div><div>I would also find value in gaining access to groupSelectedLayers.</div><div><br></div><div>In the long term I also feel that control of sub-groups is essential (part of the overhaul?).</div><div><br></div><div>In summary I support exposing further legend controls before 2.0</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Kelly</div> </div></body>
</html>