Makes sense to me, I'm a +1 as well.
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Scott Aslan <scottyas...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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/#/ >>
