Ryan - the other useful case for read-only is basically when is scanning around the graph and accidentally moves a processor or relationship. By no means a big deal. The idea here was to make it explicit though that the user wishes to go into an edit mode.
I do think the undo mechanism plays well and you're right that we can just focus on tightening up the delete case. Sounds like the prevailing view is to avoid read-only as a mode but rather to make it more explicit whenever we delete - and potentially move we could make more specific rather than simply them having clicked and dragged which is ambiguous with the process of panning. On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Ryan Blue <b...@cloudera.com> wrote: > I'm not a big fan of having a read-only mode by default. It sounds like > something that would be frustrating for users when they try to make changes > and then have to figure out how to switch modes. > > I think a clearer picture of the problem we're trying to solve would help my > understanding. I'm primarily thinking of the delete case you mentioned with > these comments... > > If we're talking about accidentally deleting processors, then the current > mechanisms (IIRC) work pretty well: not deleting a running processor, one > that has live incoming connections, etc. If those rules are insufficient, I > would explore extending them rather than having a global read-only mode. > > For the case where the wrong processor is selected because it is off the > screen, maybe having the confirmation pop up if anything affected wasn't > displayed to confirm? That way we don't have confirmations all the time but > still don't do unexpected things. > > I really like the idea of "undo" as well. If that is limited to processors > that weren't running (because you can't delete ones that are), then that > makes the undo operation easier to implement. > > rb > > > On 08/08/2015 11:31 AM, Joe Witt wrote: >> >> I can dig the user pref aspect but it would mean we start storing user >> prefs which is a bummer. >> On Aug 8, 2015 1:42 PM, "Tony Kurc" <trk...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Personally not a fan of the idea. Maybe something analogous to something >>> like 'lock the taskbar' in Windows that can have a system default setting >>> and a user preference of on or off. >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 11:44 AM, johny casanova < >>> computertech2...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree it is easy to move it delete something by mistake. Some flows >>>> are >>>> huge or are using,more resources and are slower to load and you can >>>> accidently do something by mistake. I believe the "are yous sure u want >>> >>> to >>>> >>>> delete?" its a good start. >>>> On Aug 7, 2015 10:31 PM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Team, >>>>> >>>>> We've been hearing from users of nifi that it is too easy to >>>>> accidentally move something on the flow or delete large portions of >>>>> the flow. This is the case when panning the screen for example and >>>>> accidentally having a processor selected instead. >>>>> >>>>> What is worth consideration then is the notion of making the flow >>>>> 'read-only' by default. In this case the user would need to >>>>> explicitly 'enable edit mode'. We would then also support a >>>>> confirmation dialog or similar construct whenever deleting components >>>>> on the flow. >>>>> >>>>> Anyone have a strong objection to this concept? If so, do you have an >>>>> alternative in mind that would help avoid accidental movement? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Cloudera, Inc.
