All, Thank you for the feedback.
I will extend the PR so that the required endpoints are in place but will leave the effective UI design to our UX experts. Hopefully I should be able to use the @Restricted as a basis for this work. Otherwise I will shout for some guidance. Cheers On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agreed on both the icon being preferable as the vehicle to show this > for processors on the graph instead of color and also in emphasizing > this during processor selection. > > Thanks > > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Matt Burgess <mattyb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Visual indication on existing processors is a good thing, but IMO we'll > definitely need indication on the processor selection dialog, so the user > will know that we suggest they choose an alternative. > > > > Regards, > > Matt > > > >> On Apr 30, 2017, at 7:12 PM, Jeff <jtsw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I think an icon on the processor would be best to denote an upcoming > >> deprecation. That leaves all colors available to the flow design, since > >> any color may have specific meaning to any current flow out there. > >> > >>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:58 PM Juan Sequeiros <helloj...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> In same train of though maybe make it default to some color other than > >>> white, instinct says red but that might be used to represent an > important > >>> processor. So suggest maybe default beige? > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 8:20 AM Andy LoPresto < > alopresto.apa...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I'd leave the graphics work/decisions to someone like Rob Moran, but I > >>> see > >>>> it as similar to the restricted components -- an icon on the > processors > >>> on > >>>> the canvas and the dialog to add components, with additional > explanation > >>>> (and maybe a target release for full deprecation) in the help notes. > >>>> > >>>> Andy LoPresto > >>>> alopre...@apache.org > >>>> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com > >>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > >>>> > >>>>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 05:16, Andre <andre-li...@fucs.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> dev, > >>>>> > >>>>> In light of the some recent deprecations (ListenLumberjack) and some > >>>>> potential deprecation (PutJMS/GetJMS) I started some progress on how > to > >>>>> document the depreciation of NiFi components using annotations. > >>>>> > >>>>> In the absence of any better name I called the annotation > >>>>> @DeprecationWarning (so not overlap with Java's @Deprecated) > >>>>> > >>>>> The suggested modifications are part of PR#1718 and I am keen to hear > >>>> your > >>>>> thoughts. > >>>>> > >>>>> While the documentation can be displayed as part of the usage, > however > >>> I > >>>>> would imagine the frequency a user browses to the usage pages will > >>> reduce > >>>>> as her/him becomes familiar with the components. > >>>>> > >>>>> In light of this it may be a good idea to use the web UI to > highlight > >>> a > >>>>> processor has been deprecated. > >>>>> > >>>>> Would anyone suggest a way of doing so without disrupting the user > >>>>> experience? > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers > >>>> > >>> >
