"Sometimes I care a lot about having everything line up in the graph" -- That should be our slogan for a NiFi TShirt.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:20 PM, dan bress <danbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe not exactly "auto-layout" but I would back a notion of having the > components snap to a coarser grain grid than what we currently have. > Sometimes I care a lot about having everything line up in the graph > horizontally and vertically, and it always takes a long time to achieve > this. > > I could see this being achieved by snapping the component to the same spot > horizontally as the component above it when you move it underneath another > component. Or some magical "auto snap" button that does its best to align > everything with its nearest neighbors. > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:37 PM Ryan H <rhendrickson.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
