+1 for "snap to grid" feature Sent from my iPhone
> On 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 >>
