Brightway 2.5 support in Activity Browser? Give us feedback!

[marc-vdm]

We are currently exploring moving Activity Browser to Brightway 2.5.
This work is led by Chris Mutel and Cauldron. As this is a big project, this will take some time. When we know more concretely if/when this change will be complete we will share that.

What would a Brightway 2.5 version of Activity Browser mean for you?

• If you're only using Activity Browser (not Brightway):
  • Nothing major would change for you
  • There would be a wizard (the software kind, unfortunately 🧙‍♂️) that would guide you step-by-step to create Brightway 2.5 copies of your projects (and databases within those projects)
• If you're using Brightway 2 in the same projects as Activity Browser:
  • There would be a wizard that will guide you step-by-step to create Brightway 2.5 copies of your projects (and databases within those projects)
  • You would have to change your own scripts to Brightway 2.5 if you would want to keep using them in combination with Activity Browser
• If you're already using Brightway 2.5 in other projects than you use with Activity Browser:
  • Great news! Activity Browser would become compatible with those projects!
• Note that Brightway 2.5 projects and databases are not backwards compatible with Brightway 2

Right now, we are looking for community feedback on whether we should switch, and if we do, if you would want to keep support for a Brightway 2 version alongside the Brightway 2.5 version. The Brightway 2 version will keep existing either way, but we want to hear from you if you want a Brightway 2 version to keep receiving new features. An advantage of two versions is that we stay compatible for other libraries in the Brightway ecosystem that may not (yet) have switched to Brightway 2.5, e.g. LCA Algebraic (See the discussion over at lca_algebraic here: oie-mines-paristech/lca_algebraic#42) (LCA Algebraic is moving to BW2.5). A disadvantage would be that we are a small team with limited resources, developing two versions in parallel would give us a lot more work, while we could be spending that time on one version instead.

Let us know what you think, we want to hear from you on this!

[marc-vdm]

One comment we received over email:

[...]

And regarding the issue of keeping a bw2 version of AB, I think it would be a good option, as long as other brightway-LCA library are still only available for bw2. This is the case for lca-algebraic for instance, which is very helpful ! Keeping a version of AB on bw2 would give more time to the developer to update their library ?

It is just a suggestion !

Thank you for the amazing work !

[AdelineJerome]

Hi,

In my case, I started using the AB and then learned about how to use Brightway more recently. It means that all the training I got was on Bightway 2.5 and I also find the documentation more detailed for Brightway 2.5. However, I find it very useful to check my model and run calculations via the AB.
For now, I chose to try using Brightway 2, but I would very much appreciate it if the AB becomes compatible with Brightway 2.5. I could have access to my old projects in an environment with an older version of the AB.
I do not know how my case is representative of the rest of the community, but it might be the case for "new" Brightway users as well?

These are my two cents on the topic!