I like your idea Rob, that would help with lining up relationships too (straight lines).
On Matt's note, I don't think there should be a "standard" either, although best practices are always out there. On Matt's note of putting failures up above processes, we do that too. Totally depends on who made the flow first. Sometimes, people don't even follow a convention in the same flow.xml file. For these reasons, I'd recommend alternate views to the flow. We have a couple projects that just allow you to rearrange a node-based graph, based on your preference, hierarchy, circular, pyramid, etc. Applying this to NiFi, having a couple different default auto-layout options that you can swap your current view to, but NOT change the original flow, would be nice. It would let you walk into someone else's, potentially large, dataflow and have a familiar way to view the flow. Ryan On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Rob Moran <rmo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Matt's points. I was just replying with something similar > basically saying I think trying to set a standard would not be > well-received. > > I believe what could be more useful are layout tools that would help users > place components to help achieve their preferred layouts. For example, the > ability to align (left, right, center) components > or horizontally/vertically distribute components evenly. Other features > such as snap-to and/or smart-guides could make it easier for users to > follow their organization's best practices when designing a flow. > > Rob > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Matthew Clarke <matt.clarke....@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > Ryan, > > > > Setting a standard is a difficult thing to do. The complexity > > that can exist in many flows would make enforcing a standard difficult. > The > > first example you provide of success to points right while failures point > > up is not recommended. It would be better to have failures point down > since > > it is common to put labels over processor(s). Any relationships pointing > up > > would pass through these labels making both the relationship box and the > > label hard to read. It is often coomon to see flows designed with a > > combination of left to right and top to bottom design. > > > > Matt > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Ryan H <rhendrickson.w...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > Yea we did, it was at the end of the meeting. > > > > > > I think it would be useful to have a couple default type views that > > > help standardize flow layout across the community. > > > > > > For example, when we organize processors left-to-right, failure > > > relationships always point up, and success always point right. > > > Alternatively, when we organize processors up-and-down, failure > > > relationships always point left, and successes always point down. > > > > > > Of course, in some of these scenarios there are processors that > have > > > more than 1 success relationship, but that's when a good layout library > > > would come into play. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Rob Moran <rmo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Ryan - I think we spoke briefly (at a very high level) about this at > a > > > > prior meetup. What alternate views did you have in mind, and in what > > ways > > > > do you think they'd be useful? > > > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Ryan H < > rhendrickson.w...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It'd be pretty awesome if NiFi provided the ability to > auto-organize > > a > > > > > layout. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe even just a auto-organized layout that doesn't change the > > > flow.xml, > > > > > just an alternate view. > > > > > > > > > > Looking at these demos here: http://js.cytoscape.org/#demos > > > > > > > > > > Ryan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
