Good timing as we're close to ready for a first nifi-fds release. I would definitely favor us keeping the 'nifi-fds' naming as that means I dont have to change a bunch of code so Apache NiFi Flow Design System does that just fine. I will take care of updating the readme and other areas we need to change but we can keep the repo as-is with this.
The descriptive name is better, generic, and consistent with some of the discuss thread feedback a while back anyway. I'll wait to kick off the release for the outcome of this discussion and vote. I'm +1 on this. Thanks On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Rob Moran <rmo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it's important to highlight that for nifi-fds the 'f' part of the > name was for 'fluid.' This is part of a FLUID product design system [1] to > which I also contribute, that at the time was an internal concept, but is > now being described in a public manner. However, nifi-fds is partially > inspired by FLUID concepts as well as others. Specifically, Material Design > [2] and Teradata's Covalent UI Platform [3]. > > We should change the name to reflect that what we're aiming for is a set of > reusable UI components that the NiFi ecosystem can leverage. The UI > components are inspired by these design systems, and will possibly be > influenced by others as it evolves. > > Since we've already established the FDS naming scheme, I propose a simple > path would be to call it the Apache NiFi *Flow* Design System rather than a > unique/standalone term. This way the nifi-fds repo will not require a > change. We can just update the descriptions. > > I assume we should vote on this if others agree? > > [1] http://productdesign.hortonworks.com/ > [2] https://material.io/design/ > [3] https://teradata.github.io/covalent/#/ >
