search

ladybug-tools / ladybug-dynamo

:beetle: :blue_book: Ladybug library and plugin for DynamoBIM
http://www.ladybug.tools/ladybug.html
GNU General Public License v3.0
31 stars 13 forks source link

modifyEPW #3

Open mostaphaRoudsari opened 9 years ago

mostaphaRoudsari commented 9 years ago

Input an epw file, replaces values but new values from user and saves a new .epw file.

or maybe it should be called epw.modify in Dynamo? @ayezioro, @arkdanielnielsen and @ksobon and any other person who is reading this. What do you think about the naming? Do you think we should keep it consistent with the Grasshopper development or should we follow Dynamo naming convention importEpw or epw.import ?

arkdanielnielsen commented 9 years ago

Good question... to make it easier for people moving from GH to DY I would prefer the original GH naming. In the other hand I cannot remember all the names anyway. Typical I remember the components by the images... but in Dynamo it is not possible, as far I know, to create your own icons for single nodes.

ayezioro commented 9 years ago

Hi Mostapha, Don't think this is critical. As a principle i would say that if you have the choice (easy one) it is preferable to be consistent and keep the names between environments. But in this case i don't think is crucial. As Daniel, first i look for the icon, then i make sure seeing the name.

-A.

mostaphaRoudsari commented 9 years ago

Hi Daniel and Abraham. Thank you for the feedback. IMO since icons are not easy to see in Dynamo naming is really critical to be able to find the right node. It's actually possible to create your own icons now. Based on your feedback I will keep the naming consistent between GH and DS. Thanks again!

ksobon commented 9 years ago

Are you making your components as ZeroTouch or Python? If it's Python then I will say, just do what you were doing in Grasshopper. If it's ZT then i would go the easy route and keep the Dynamo naming (namespace+class+method) as that's the easiest thing to do. Also, I don't necessarily agree with the argument that your user base will be the same as in Grasshopper. As a matter of fact I found that most people using Grasshopper are not using Dynamo at all (at least not yet). There is a handful of "power users" that are using both, but most of your clients will be either Grasshopper users or Dynamo users and rarely both. Keeping it consistent with what they are seeing in Dynamo might be a good idea but I don't think its critical either. One argument to keep it consistent with Dynamo naming is that it will just be easier for you to maintain the ZT library, and if you will have some custom UI nodes it will REALLY be easier to just keep the Dynamo naming.

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Hi Daniel and Abraham. Thank you for the feedback. IMO since icons are not easy to see in Dynamo naming is really critical to be able to find the right node. It's actually possible to create your own icons now. Based on your feedback I will keep the naming consistent between GH and DS. Thanks again!

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/ladybug-analysis-tools/ladybug-dynamo/issues/3#issuecomment-160362922 .

Konrad K Sobon www.archi-lab.net @arch_laboratory

mostaphaRoudsari commented 9 years ago

Hi @ksobon! Thanks. Very informative. It will be Python nodes and naming is a choice. Good point about having two separate group of users. I haven't made my mind yet. The libraries are almost ready so I need to make a decision very soon. The good news is that we can test one of them and then change to the other one if it didn't work well. I'm still not sure what I will be doing. :) Thanks again.