plugins organization/grouping proposal

[giohappy]

Hi all.
In these days I was watching my qgis plugins toolbar growin' and
growin'... That's good, it means a lot of good code is being written,
but I was wondering if it's the time to consider organizing the
plugins under common task/feature/etc groups. It is a common structure
in many GIS desktops: GRASS groups them under different "namespaces"
(r.*, v.*, d.*, i.*, etc.), SAGA use data-types or kind of analysis
(i.e. "grid", "vector", "table", "terrain analysis" modules, etc.),
and so on for many others (MapWindows, or commercial solutions like
ArcGIS Desktop).
Wouldn't it be useful for QGis too? Has this been discussed?

bye,
giovanni
_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user

[Borys Jurgiel-2]

Dne úterý 03 listopadu 2009 22:55:37 G. Allegri napsal(a):

> Hi all.
> In these days I was watching my qgis plugins toolbar growin' and
> growin'... That's good, it means a lot of good code is being written,
> but I was wondering if it's the time to consider organizing the
> plugins under common task/feature/etc groups. It is a common structure
> in many GIS desktops: GRASS groups them under different "namespaces"
> (r.*, v.*, d.*, i.*, etc.), SAGA use data-types or kind of analysis
> (i.e. "grid", "vector", "table", "terrain analysis" modules, etc.),
> and so on for many others (MapWindows, or commercial solutions like
> ArcGIS Desktop).
> Wouldn't it be useful for QGis too? Has this been discussed?

Hi,
Thanks you mention it! It will be my primary task on the incoming Hacfest :)
Any kind of suggestions wellcome!
_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user

[Nikos Alexandris]

On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 22:55 +0100, G. Allegri wrote:

> Hi all.
> In these days I was watching my qgis plugins toolbar growin' and
> growin'... That's good, it means a lot of good code is being written,
> but I was wondering if it's the time to consider organizing the
> plugins under common task/feature/etc groups. It is a common structure
> in many GIS desktops: GRASS groups them under different "namespaces"
> (r.*, v.*, d.*, i.*, etc.), SAGA use data-types or kind of analysis
> (i.e. "grid", "vector", "table", "terrain analysis" modules, etc.),
> and so on for many others (MapWindows, or commercial solutions like
> ArcGIS Desktop).
> Wouldn't it be useful for QGis too? Has this been discussed?

See http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2009-October/006477.html

Regards, Nikos

_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user

[giohappy]

Nikos, I didn't notice your suggestion. Good to know that it's not an
isolated idea :)

My two cents.
In general I feel confortable with a nested model. We could provide a
first top-level grouping based on the qgis layer type the plugin
operates on, i.e. raster and vector. We can further subdivide them
into second-level generic groups like "import/export", "analysis",
etc. I would avoid groups like "terrain analysis" or "hydrology" at
this level, even if this is a common approach, and would let them
reside in lower levels... but I'm not sure whetrer it makes sense or
it's just a subjective feeling.

giovanni


2009/11/3 Νίκος Αλεξανδρής <[hidden email]>:

> On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 22:55 +0100, G. Allegri wrote:
>> Hi all.
>> In these days I was watching my qgis plugins toolbar growin' and
>> growin'... That's good, it means a lot of good code is being written,
>> but I was wondering if it's the time to consider organizing the
>> plugins under common task/feature/etc groups. It is a common structure
>> in many GIS desktops: GRASS groups them under different "namespaces"
>> (r.*, v.*, d.*, i.*, etc.), SAGA use data-types or kind of analysis
>> (i.e. "grid", "vector", "table", "terrain analysis" modules, etc.),
>> and so on for many others (MapWindows, or commercial solutions like
>> ArcGIS Desktop).
>> Wouldn't it be useful for QGis too? Has this been discussed?
>
> See http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2009-October/006477.html
>
> Regards, Nikos
>
>

_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user

[Nikos Alexandris]

On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 00:14 +0100, G. Allegri wrote:

> Nikos, I didn't notice your suggestion. Good to know that it's not an
> isolated idea :)
>
> My two cents.
> In general I feel confortable with a nested model. We could provide a
> first top-level grouping based on the qgis layer type the plugin
> operates on, i.e. raster and vector. We can further subdivide them
> into second-level generic groups like "import/export", "analysis",
> etc. I would avoid groups like "terrain analysis" or "hydrology" at
> this level, even if this is a common approach, and would let them
> reside in lower levels... but I'm not sure whetrer it makes sense or
> it's just a subjective feeling.
>
> giovanni

+ some more general suggestions:

- no more than 2 levels - if required then (max.) 3 levels
- icons can be smaller (or at least have the option between e.g.: small,
medium, large)
- use the empty space on the very bottom panel (left from coordinate:,
scale:, [box]Render, CRS status button). Maybe merge with the very top
panel (the file - edit - view - ... - help menus)?

Nikos


#####################################################################
G. Allegri wrote:

> >> Hi all.
> >> In these days I was watching my qgis plugins toolbar growin' and
> >> growin'... That's good, it means a lot of good code is being written,
> >> but I was wondering if it's the time to consider organizing the
> >> plugins under common task/feature/etc groups. It is a common structure
> >> in many GIS desktops: GRASS groups them under different "namespaces"
> >> (r.*, v.*, d.*, i.*, etc.), SAGA use data-types or kind of analysis
> >> (i.e. "grid", "vector", "table", "terrain analysis" modules, etc.),
> >> and so on for many others (MapWindows, or commercial solutions like
> >> ArcGIS Desktop).
> >> Wouldn't it be useful for QGis too? Has this been discussed?

Νίκος Αλεξανδρής:
> > See http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2009-October/006477.html
> > Regards, Nikos

_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user

[Micha Silver]

Νίκος Αλεξανδρής wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 00:14 +0100, G. Allegri wrote:
>  
>> Nikos, I didn't notice your suggestion. Good to know that it's not an
>> isolated idea :)
>>
>> My two cents.
>> In general I feel confortable with a nested model. We could provide a
>> first top-level grouping based on the qgis layer type the plugin
>> operates on, i.e. raster and vector. We can further subdivide them
>> into second-level generic groups like "import/export", "analysis",
>> etc. I would avoid groups like "terrain analysis" or "hydrology" at
>> this level, even if this is a common approach, and would let them
>> reside in lower levels... but I'm not sure whetrer it makes sense or
>> it's just a subjective feeling.
>>
>> giovanni
>>    
>
>
> + some more general suggestions:
>
> - no more than 2 levels - if required then (max.) 3 levels
> - icons can be smaller (or at least have the option between e.g.: small,
> medium, large)
> - use the empty space on the very bottom panel (left from coordinate:,
> scale:, [box]Render, CRS status button). Maybe merge with the very top
> panel (the file - edit - view - ... - help menus)?
>
> Nikos
>
>  

+1 for all of the above.
I'd suggest to use just three categories for the plugins at this stage:
Vector, Raster and General, where "General" would contain things like
Grass, ManageR, GDALTools.

Regards,
Micha

> #####################################################################
> G. Allegri wrote:
>  
>>>> Hi all.
>>>> In these days I was watching my qgis plugins toolbar growin' and
>>>> growin'... That's good, it means a lot of good code is being written,
>>>> but I was wondering if it's the time to consider organizing the
>>>> plugins under common task/feature/etc groups. It is a common structure
>>>> in many GIS desktops: GRASS groups them under different "namespaces"
>>>> (r.*, v.*, d.*, i.*, etc.), SAGA use data-types or kind of analysis
>>>> (i.e. "grid", "vector", "table", "terrain analysis" modules, etc.),
>>>> and so on for many others (MapWindows, or commercial solutions like
>>>> ArcGIS Desktop).
>>>> Wouldn't it be useful for QGis too? Has this been discussed?
>>>>        
>
> Νίκος Αλεξανδρής:
>  
>>> See http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2009-October/006477.html
>>> Regards, Nikos
>>>      
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user
>
> This mail was received via Mail-SeCure System.
>
>
>  

_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user

[giohappy]

> +1 for all of the above.
> I'd suggest to use just three categories for the plugins at this stage:
> Vector, Raster and General, where "General" would contain things like Grass,
> ManageR, GDALTools.

I agree. The first step could be just one level with the proposed
categories. The nested model was just to design the system to be
easily extanded when the requirements will grow.
Vector, Raster, General resemble the GRASS namespaces: +1 :)

giovanni

PS: thanks Borys fro working on this. Good hackfest to everyone!
_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user

[Nikos Alexandris]

On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 11:40 +0100, G. Allegri wrote:

> > +1 for all of the above.
> > I'd suggest to use just three categories for the plugins at this stage:
> > Vector, Raster and General, where "General" would contain things like Grass,
> > ManageR, GDALTools.
>
> I agree. The first step could be just one level with the proposed
> categories. The nested model was just to design the system to be
> easily extanded when the requirements will grow.
> Vector, Raster, General resemble the GRASS namespaces: +1 :)
>
> giovanni
>
> PS: thanks Borys fro working on this. Good hackfest to everyone!

a quick mockup:
http://www.imagehack.gr/images/jsu0ipvsbt3giyihmloq.png :-)

Good hackfest @all, Nikos

_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user

[giohappy]

Do you prefer at the bottom? Why? Usually their located in the principal toolbar, as they're core functionalities for a gis, not "service utilities"...

2009/11/4 Νίκος Αλεξανδρής <[hidden email]>

On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 11:40 +0100, G. Allegri wrote:
> > +1 for all of the above.
> > I'd suggest to use just three categories for the plugins at this stage:
> > Vector, Raster and General, where "General" would contain things like Grass,
> > ManageR, GDALTools.
>
> I agree. The first step could be just one level with the proposed
> categories. The nested model was just to design the system to be
> easily extanded when the requirements will grow.
> Vector, Raster, General resemble the GRASS namespaces: +1 :)
>
> giovanni
>
> PS: thanks Borys fro working on this. Good hackfest to everyone!

a quick mockup:
http://www.imagehack.gr/images/jsu0ipvsbt3giyihmloq.png :-)

Good hackfest @all, Nikos

_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user

[Nikos Alexandris]

On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 13:17 +0100, G. Allegri wrote:
> Do you prefer at the bottom? Why? Usually their located in the
> principal toolbar, as they're core functionalities for a gis, not
> "service utilities"...


Hmm... yes. I just wanted to show the group-box. I was to lazy to edit
more and put it on top :-p

But I wouldn't mind to be able to have them at the bottom line.

Nikos

>
> 2009/11/4 Νίκος Αλεξανδρής <[hidden email]>
>        
>         On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 11:40 +0100, G. Allegri wrote:
>         > > +1 for all of the above.
>         > > I'd suggest to use just three categories for the plugins
>         at this stage:
>         > > Vector, Raster and General, where "General" would contain
>         things like Grass,
>         > > ManageR, GDALTools.
>         >
>         > I agree. The first step could be just one level with the
>         proposed
>         > categories. The nested model was just to design the system
>         to be
>         > easily extanded when the requirements will grow.
>         > Vector, Raster, General resemble the GRASS namespaces: +1 :)
>         >
>         > giovanni
>         >
>         > PS: thanks Borys fro working on this. Good hackfest to
>         everyone!
>        
>        
>         a quick mockup:
>         http://www.imagehack.gr/images/jsu0ipvsbt3giyihmloq.png :-)
>        
>         Good hackfest @all, Nikos
>        
>

_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user

[giohappy]

Ok :) thanks anyway for the mock

2009/11/4 Νίκος Αλεξανδρής <[hidden email]>

On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 13:17 +0100, G. Allegri wrote:
> Do you prefer at the bottom? Why? Usually their located in the
> principal toolbar, as they're core functionalities for a gis, not
> "service utilities"...

Hmm... yes. I just wanted to show the group-box. I was to lazy to edit
more and put it on top :-p

But I wouldn't mind to be able to have them at the bottom line.

Nikos

>
> 2009/11/4 Νίκος Αλεξανδρής <[hidden email]>
>
>         On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 11:40 +0100, G. Allegri wrote:
>         > > +1 for all of the above.
>         > > I'd suggest to use just three categories for the plugins
>         at this stage:
>         > > Vector, Raster and General, where "General" would contain
>         things like Grass,
>         > > ManageR, GDALTools.
>         >
>         > I agree. The first step could be just one level with the
>         proposed
>         > categories. The nested model was just to design the system
>         to be
>         > easily extanded when the requirements will grow.
>         > Vector, Raster, General resemble the GRASS namespaces: +1 :)
>         >
>         > giovanni
>         >
>         > PS: thanks Borys fro working on this. Good hackfest to
>         everyone!
>
>
>         a quick mockup:
>         http://www.imagehack.gr/images/jsu0ipvsbt3giyihmloq.png :-)
>
>         Good hackfest @all, Nikos
>
>

_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user