Is there is a possibility of folks having skinned or extended the UI? Would these changes be expected to work on minor version revisions?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Simon Ball <sb...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > The new UI looks fantastic, and seems to be heading in a very good > direction. > > One thought I have is around the upgrade experience. Given that we will > likely end up with different sized elements to the existing UI, people may > find existing flow layouts end up somewhat jumbled with the repositioning > of elements. This should be easy to solve, with a migration the existing > attributes to a transformed (proportionally scaled?) coordinate system. > > Impact of this may be limited, but for early adopters who’ve put a lot of > investment into their layouts, it has the potential to end up making a mess > if we don’t provide some sort of migration. > > An alternative would be to limit the design to follow the existing > bounding box dimensions, but I think this would be a shame, and preclude > some of the lovely visual improvements that are emerging in the new mockups. > > Simon > > > On 6 Jan 2016, at 20:29, Mark Payne <marka...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think we could certainly do that, where we create a separate branch to > make all those changes. > > However, I do think that comes with some downsides. > > > > The UI codebase would likely be very different. Any change that is made > to the 0.x baseline would > > have to be made in two codebases, and if the 1.x branch is very > different, git rebases and the like may not > > work very well and trying to keep those changes in sync can quickly > become a rather large burden and be > > very error-prone. > > > > We've also been talking about revamping the UI since around version > 0.2.0. It's been in discussions for > > quite a long time, and it's just taken a while to come to fruition. > > > > Additionally, the new design, I believe, will provide a far better user > experience for low-resolution displays > > by providing the docked panels instead of letting everything rest at the > top of the screen, as well as high > > resolution displays by providing different types of components and > getting rid of some of those gradients. > > > > While I can understand the idea of "This is a major change so it should > wait until 1.0.0," I also think that since > > it provides the same functionality and is not breaking in any way, it is > not necessary to do so. > > > > Some key points that I believe we will need for 1.0.0 include > multi-tenant capabilities as well as HA. Changes to > > the UI I think could be accomplished quite a bit before those > capabilities are addressed. So while we could > > bench the changes on a branch for quite a while for 1.0.0, I don't > believe it's really necessary and I think that > > the pros outweigh the cons in this case. > > > > So I'm a +1 for introducing these changes in 0.6.0 and not waiting for a > 1.0.0 release. > > > > Thanks > > -Mark > > > > > >> On Jan 6, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Doesn't this mean we could start moving towards 1.0 by keeping these > >> UI changes isolated in an appropriate branch and make the completion > >> of multitentant dataflow (and whatever other features) the complete > >> marker? > >> > >> If we need the UI in a distributable form, e.g. so that we can start > >> gathering feedback, we can do that by having a 1.0.0-alpha or the > >> like. > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Matt Gilman <matt.c.gil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> Tony, > >>> > >>> That is correct. The UI redesign is necessary for a 1.0 feature. > >>> Additionally, the UI changes are limited to styling and positioning of > >>> certain elements for controlling the dataflow. > >>> > >>> Matt > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Matt, > >>>> I'm not sure I followed. I think you said we have two things: > >>>> A) ui redesign > >>>> B) multi-tenant dataflow > >>>> > >>>> We need A before B, and B will be in 1.0, so we need A in a release > before > >>>> 1.0. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Tony > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Matt Gilman <matt.c.gil...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> One of the items that's needed to go over the 1.0 cliff is support > for > >>>>> multi-tenant dataflows. Scoping user authorization to portions of a > >>>>> dataflow will require a major bump due to API changes and the like. > Part > >>>> of > >>>>> the motivation for this UI redesign is laying the foundation for that > >>>>> effort. Additionally, we'll get the added benefit of supporting a > more > >>>>> responsive layout and modernized look and feel in the meantime. > >>>>> > >>>>> Matt > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> +1 to "UI redesign warrants a major version increment" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I know that we're "pre 1.0", but this sounds like it's time to > figure > >>>> out > >>>>>> what we need to include to go over that cliff. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Looks great so far! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I saw the target release of 0.6, which surprised me a bit. I would > >>>> have > >>>>>>> expected this significant of a change would warrant a major release > >>>>>>> increment. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Rob Moran <rmo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Greetings NiFi community, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> NIFI-1323 [1] has been mentioned in (at least one) previous > thread. > >>>>> In > >>>>>>> case > >>>>>>>> you are unaware, it involves beginning work on a series of UI > >>>>>>> improvements. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'd like to point your attention to the wiki page [2] where you > can > >>>>>> read > >>>>>>> up > >>>>>>>> on factors that are driving this effort. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1323 > >>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Redesign+User+Interface > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Rob > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Sean > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > > > > > >
