[Qgis-developer] fTools - Processing (again)

[Bernhard Ströbl]

Hi Matthias,

sorry, I was not aware that new algorithms currently get implemented in 
both, fTools and Processing (same for bug fixes). This may be because of 
my ignorance, as I only adressed Processing with both, bug fixes and new 
algorithms since it had been introduced.

Bernhard

Am 14.09.2015 um 09:48 schrieb Matthias Kuhn:
> Hi Bernhard
>
>
> On 09/14/2015 09:39 AM, Bernhard Ströbl wrote:
>> Hi Matthias,
>>
>> Am 14.09.2015 um 09:31 schrieb Matthias Kuhn:
>>> Hi Bernhard,
>>>
>>> The current code redundancy does have some severe issues like:
>>>
>>>    * Algorithms may give different results from the vector menu and
>>> processing (although both labelled similar, [QGIS] Geoprocessing)
>>
>> I would need hints on tickets addressing such problems. If that is
>> really the case who is going to decide what the "right" result is?
>> Alternatively we could keep both but label them differently.
> I don't know, maybe Paolo has some experiences?
>
> For now, I would just dump one of the two implementations and if
> problems surface decide case-by-case about the procedure (duplication or
> introduction of an additional parameter).
>
>>
>>>    * Bugs need to be fixed twice
>>
>> are they currently?
>>
>>>    * Features need to be implemented twice
>>
>> are they currently?
> My comments were targetting the current situation ;)
>
> -- Matthias
>>
>> Bernhard
>>>
>>> If I remember right, somebody was working on a C++ implementation of
>>> fTools recently. Does that ring a bell somewhere? It would be a pitty if
>>> you work on this and a new implementation is merged at the same time.
>>>
>>> After this question has been answered, a big +1 from my side to work on
>>> this.
>>> And another +1 if we get some unittests for the algorithms. They are
>>> actually perfect candidates for unittests.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>> On 09/14/2015 09:05 AM, Bernhard Ströbl wrote:
>>>> Hi Paolo,
>>>>
>>>> just a thought: AFAIK fTools does not use 3rd party backends, so the
>>>> question of bulletproofness in conjunction with fTools IMHO should
>>>> only be raised for those algorithms that are currently in "QGIS
>>>> geoalgorithms". (Otherwise I fully agree: the rest should work
>>>> flawlessly)
>>>> As I said I would be willing to port what has not been ported yet
>>>> and/or look over algorithms that do not work as expected.
>>>> In spring the question of icons has been raised, too. This should not
>>>> be forgetten, either.
>>>>
>>>> Bernhard
>>>>
>>>> Am 11.09.2015 um 12:52 schrieb Paolo Cavallini:
>>>>> Il 11/09/2015 11:29, kimaidou ha scritto:
>>>>>> +1 for this !
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> thanks for raising this point, IMHO a serious one. I'm very much in
>>>>> favour of removing redundancy. In this case, however, I think we
>>>>> better
>>>>> be careful before removing fTools, because:
>>>>>
>>>>> * people are used to it, and for one-shot analyses it is (slightly)
>>>>> easier to run than Processing (weak argument)
>>>>> * we do not have enough development resources to make Processing
>>>>> bulletproof, particularly for 3rd party backends; therefore, we
>>>>> encounter occasional problems, and we cannot guarantee a smooth user
>>>>> experience in all cases (strong argument).
>>>>>
>>>>> First issue can be solved, as suggested, by adding menu shortcuts to
>>>>> Processing analyses, to mimic existing situation.
>>>>> Second one is more serious: IMHO we really need a dedicated
>>>>> developer in
>>>>> this area: any power user (=larger institutions) are willing to
>>>>> take it?
>>>>> Similar things may be said for GDALTools.
>>>>> All the best.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________ Information from ESET Mail Security, version of virus
>>>> signature database 12248 (20150914) __________
>>>>
>>>> The message was checked by ESET Mail Security.
>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Qgis-developer mailing list
>>>> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET Mail Security, version of virus
>> signature database 12248 (20150914) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET Mail Security.
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>
>



__________ Information from ESET Mail Security, version of virus signature database 12248 (20150914) __________

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