I don't care so much about having it lined up, in this case (although *OCD!*), more about knowing that I could view the data in a common-way on any nifi, globally, if i choose to click a "view->auto-layout->up-down" or "view->auto-layout->left-right".
Again, this doesn't overwrite flow.xml file. Just a way to organize the canvas using common alternate view(s). On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > "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 > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
