[Qgis-developer] fTools and GdalTools: sextante vs original plugins

[Bernhard Ströbl]

Hi all,

just want to inform you that Victor was able to solve my two problems. 
Number 1 (CRS missmatch) was kinda my fault (or let's say the fault of a 
former QGIS version where my project originally was created in: QGIS did 
compare proj4 definition and picked the first CRS the definition of the 
layer matched. As EPSG:31464 and EPSG:31468 have the same proj4 
definition but the first is deprecated it was chosen, although my layer 
is defined as EPSG:31468 in geometry_columns)
Number 2 (no PostGIS suppport) was fixed in master

Bernhard

Am 17.04.2013 09:24, schrieb Victor Olaya:
> Bernhard
>
> I am sorry to hear about your bad experience. Could you detail a bit
> more about what you are doing (algorithms you are running, etc)?.
> PostGIS layers should work without problems, but I have recently fixed
> a problem with PostGIS when using SAGA algorithms, so there might be
> other issues like that.
>
> If you want, you can send me your layers and model, so I can have a
> look and try to find out what is happening
>
> Many thanks for your collaboration (and patience)
>
> Victor
>
>
> 2013/4/17 Bernhard Ströbl<bernhard.stroebl at jena.de>:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> for a course I am about to give tomorrow I played a bit with SEXTANTE,
>> although I am going to teach geoprocessing with fTools (we are using QGIS
>> 1.8). It was my first go with SEXTANTE and I was about to show what it will
>> offer in the future. Therefore I built a small model with three input layers
>> a buffer and two overlay operations. I did not succeed in running the model
>> so I tried in current master.
>> As it currently is SEXTANTE is not operable for me (or I am doing it wrong):
>> First message is "Layers do not all use the same CRS...." although they
>> definitely do and the same EPSG-code is noted in square brackets behind each
>> layer name!? Second I get an "Error executing algorithm..." it seems as
>> SEXTANTE cannot use PostGIS layers as input (when I save them as shape files
>> the model runs perfectly), this is a big limitation as my institution stores
>> almost everything in PostGIS. (SEXTANTE should not offer PostGIS layers to
>> choose as input layers then).
>>
>> Well, this was a very disappointing experience because additionally QGIS was
>> frozen two or three times opening or closing the model. I do not want to
>> complain, all I want is to ask for keeping fTools as they are until SEXTANTE
>> can _really_ replace them in all aspects. Then we should remove the vector
>> menue completely because I agree that finding the tool you are looking for
>> is a lot easier in SEXTANTE.
>>
>> my 2 cents
>>
>> Bernhard
>>
>> Am 17.04.2013 07:42, schrieb Anita Graser:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Mathieu Pellerin<nirvn.asia at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:nirvn.asia at gmail.com>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>      There might be a way to make most people happy here.
>>>
>>>      I find the vector menu a nice ui shortcut for useful functions. If
>>>      sextante relevant functions are at par (or better), couldn't the
>>>      vector menu items stay, which would please many, and when clicked
>>>      triggers sextante's function dialogue? Victor? Same thing could
>>>      happen with vector menu too. Sextante's analysis toolbar is super
>>>      useful but might be a throwback for some if vector / raster menu
>>>      functions disappear.
>>>
>>>      On human resource (coders and testers) and maintenance angles,
>>>      keeping to mechanism to do same thing is an obvious waste.
>>>
>>> I see. So you'd suggest to keep only Sextante code (where duplicates
>>> exist!) but provide shortcuts from the menu? I'd +1 that.
>>> I've been testing a variety of functions in the menus and in Sextante
>>> over the last days and there are always some broken ones. Neither
>>> "package" is without major bugs today.
>>> We need to get it together for 2.0 and that's easier if we can focus on
>>> one.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Anita
>>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET Mail Security, version of virus signature
>> database 8235 (20130416) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET Mail Security.
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>


__________ Information from ESET Mail Security, version of virus signature database 8236 (20130417) __________

The message was checked by ESET Mail Security.
http://www.eset.com