Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Tony Kurc]

Looks great so far!

I saw the target release of 0.6, which surprised me a bit. I would have
expected this significant of a change would warrant a major release
increment.

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Rob Moran  wrote:

> Greetings ​​NiFi community,
>
> NIFI-1323 [1] has been mentioned in (at least one) previous thread. In case
> you are unaware, it involves beginning work on a series of UI improvements.
>
> I'd like to point your attention to the wiki page [2] where you can read up
> on factors that are driving this effort.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1323
> [2]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Redesign+User+Interface
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>

RE: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Rick Braddy]

Looks like a great start!  Very much like the direction.

Would be ideal to also see mock up of how we would envison NIFI-951 to be 
factored in.

Thanks
Rick

-Original Message-
From: Rob Moran [mailto:rmo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 12:09 PM
To: dev@nifi.apache.org
Subject: Redesign User Interface (UI)

Greetings ​​NiFi community,

NIFI-1323 [1] has been mentioned in (at least one) previous thread. In case you 
are unaware, it involves beginning work on a series of UI improvements.

I'd like to point your attention to the wiki page [2] where you can read up on 
factors that are driving this effort.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1323
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Redesign+User+Interface

Thanks,
Rob

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Sean Busbey]

+1 to "UI redesign warrants a major version increment"

I know that we're "pre 1.0", but this sounds like it's time to figure out
what we need to include to go over that cliff.

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:

> Looks great so far!
>
> I saw the target release of 0.6, which surprised me a bit. I would have
> expected this significant of a change would warrant a major release
> increment.
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Rob Moran  wrote:
>
> > Greetings ​​NiFi community,
> >
> > NIFI-1323 [1] has been mentioned in (at least one) previous thread. In
> case
> > you are unaware, it involves beginning work on a series of UI
> improvements.
> >
> > I'd like to point your attention to the wiki page [2] where you can read
> up
> > on factors that are driving this effort.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1323
> > [2]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Redesign+User+Interface
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> >
>



-- 
Sean

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Matt Gilman]

One of the items that's needed to go over the 1.0 cliff is support for
multi-tenant dataflows. Scoping user authorization to portions of a
dataflow will require a major bump due to API changes and the like. Part of
the motivation for this UI redesign is laying the foundation for that
effort. Additionally, we'll get the added benefit of supporting a more
responsive layout and modernized look and feel in the meantime.

Matt

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Sean Busbey  wrote:

> +1 to "UI redesign warrants a major version increment"
>
> I know that we're "pre 1.0", but this sounds like it's time to figure out
> what we need to include to go over that cliff.
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
>
> > Looks great so far!
> >
> > I saw the target release of 0.6, which surprised me a bit. I would have
> > expected this significant of a change would warrant a major release
> > increment.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Rob Moran  wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings ​​NiFi community,
> > >
> > > NIFI-1323 [1] has been mentioned in (at least one) previous thread. In
> > case
> > > you are unaware, it involves beginning work on a series of UI
> > improvements.
> > >
> > > I'd like to point your attention to the wiki page [2] where you can
> read
> > up
> > > on factors that are driving this effort.
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1323
> > > [2]
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Redesign+User+Interface
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rob
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Tony Kurc]

Matt,
I'm not sure I followed. I think you said we have two things:
A) ui redesign
B) multi-tenant dataflow

We need A before B, and B will be in 1.0, so we need A in a release before
1.0.


Tony

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Matt Gilman  wrote:

> One of the items that's needed to go over the 1.0 cliff is support for
> multi-tenant dataflows. Scoping user authorization to portions of a
> dataflow will require a major bump due to API changes and the like. Part of
> the motivation for this UI redesign is laying the foundation for that
> effort. Additionally, we'll get the added benefit of supporting a more
> responsive layout and modernized look and feel in the meantime.
>
> Matt
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
>
> > +1 to "UI redesign warrants a major version increment"
> >
> > I know that we're "pre 1.0", but this sounds like it's time to figure out
> > what we need to include to go over that cliff.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
> >
> > > Looks great so far!
> > >
> > > I saw the target release of 0.6, which surprised me a bit. I would have
> > > expected this significant of a change would warrant a major release
> > > increment.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Rob Moran  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Greetings ​​NiFi community,
> > > >
> > > > NIFI-1323 [1] has been mentioned in (at least one) previous thread.
> In
> > > case
> > > > you are unaware, it involves beginning work on a series of UI
> > > improvements.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to point your attention to the wiki page [2] where you can
> > read
> > > up
> > > > on factors that are driving this effort.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1323
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Redesign+User+Interface
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Rob
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Matt Gilman]

Tony,

That is correct. The UI redesign is necessary for a 1.0 feature.
Additionally, the UI changes are limited to styling and positioning of
certain elements for controlling the dataflow.

Matt

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:

> Matt,
> I'm not sure I followed. I think you said we have two things:
> A) ui redesign
> B) multi-tenant dataflow
>
> We need A before B, and B will be in 1.0, so we need A in a release before
> 1.0.
>
>
> Tony
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Matt Gilman 
> wrote:
>
> > One of the items that's needed to go over the 1.0 cliff is support for
> > multi-tenant dataflows. Scoping user authorization to portions of a
> > dataflow will require a major bump due to API changes and the like. Part
> of
> > the motivation for this UI redesign is laying the foundation for that
> > effort. Additionally, we'll get the added benefit of supporting a more
> > responsive layout and modernized look and feel in the meantime.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to "UI redesign warrants a major version increment"
> > >
> > > I know that we're "pre 1.0", but this sounds like it's time to figure
> out
> > > what we need to include to go over that cliff.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Looks great so far!
> > > >
> > > > I saw the target release of 0.6, which surprised me a bit. I would
> have
> > > > expected this significant of a change would warrant a major release
> > > > increment.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Rob Moran  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Greetings ​​NiFi community,
> > > > >
> > > > > NIFI-1323 [1] has been mentioned in (at least one) previous thread.
> > In
> > > > case
> > > > > you are unaware, it involves beginning work on a series of UI
> > > > improvements.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to point your attention to the wiki page [2] where you can
> > > read
> > > > up
> > > > > on factors that are driving this effort.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1323
> > > > > [2]
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Redesign+User+Interface
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Rob
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sean
> > >
> >
>

Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Rob Moran]

Greetings ​​NiFi community,

NIFI-1323 [1] has been mentioned in (at least one) previous thread. In case
you are unaware, it involves beginning work on a series of UI improvements.

I'd like to point your attention to the wiki page [2] where you can read up
on factors that are driving this effort.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1323
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Redesign+User+Interface

Thanks,
Rob

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Mark Payne]

I must admit i hadn't considered how the layout of the graph may look if the 
components are made larger.
I think if it would mess up the layout then 1.0 makes a lot more sense. If we 
can either auto-reposition the
components though then it would be fine. Or perhaps, if we kept the components 
the same size, until 1.0
and at that point we could resize the components. That way, most of the changes 
would come into play for
0.6 and then in 1.0 we would provide additional styling. Though I don't know 
what kind of additional effort
that may add...


> On Jan 6, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Joe Witt  wrote:
> 
> ...I was definitely in the same camp of this is ok until Simon's
> email.  If we do alter their existing layout in that it could look
> messy I do think that makes it major.
> 
> To Tony's point if we make a change that would make existing custom UI
> extensions look different then it too is major.
> 
> To Tony's other point regarding skinning we do not presently have any
> skinning support.  It is probably worth discussing but for now I think
> we should document in our version commitment document that this is not
> something which is supported.  If skinning support is desirable we
> should plan for that.
> 
> In short, I do see some compelling reasons to put this in the 1.0 release.
> 
> On a related note we have some pretty cool things on the feature
> list/roadmap.  I think we're in a much better place now to plan ahead
> for these things than we have been and it is a good logical
> progression for the community to do some good roadmap planning.  I'll
> try to get Tony's roadmap wiki page filled in and send that out to
> initiate a good discussion.  *Hopefully* this week.
> 
> Thanks
> Joe
> 
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
>> Is there is a possibility of folks having skinned or extended the UI? Would
>> these changes be expected to work on minor version revisions?
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Simon Ball  wrote:
>> 
>>> The new UI looks fantastic, and seems to be heading in a very good
>>> direction.
>>> 
>>> One thought I have is around the upgrade experience. Given that we will
>>> likely end up with different sized elements to the existing UI, people may
>>> find existing flow layouts end up somewhat jumbled with the repositioning
>>> of elements. This should be easy to solve, with a migration the existing
>>> attributes to a transformed (proportionally scaled?) coordinate system.
>>> 
>>> Impact of this may be limited, but for early adopters who’ve put a lot of
>>> investment into their layouts, it has the potential to end up making a mess
>>> if we don’t provide some sort of migration.
>>> 
>>> An alternative would be to limit the design to follow the existing
>>> bounding box dimensions, but I think this would be a shame, and preclude
>>> some of the lovely visual improvements that are emerging in the new mockups.
>>> 
>>> Simon
>>> 
 On 6 Jan 2016, at 20:29, Mark Payne  wrote:
 
 I think we could certainly do that, where we create a separate branch to
>>> make all those changes.
 However, I do think that comes with some downsides.
 
 The UI codebase would likely be very different. Any change that is made
>>> to the 0.x baseline would
 have to be made in two codebases, and if the 1.x branch is very
>>> different, git rebases and the like may not
 work very well and trying to keep those changes in sync can quickly
>>> become a rather large burden and be
 very error-prone.
 
 We've also been talking about revamping the UI since around version
>>> 0.2.0. It's been in discussions for
 quite a long time, and it's just taken a while to come to fruition.
 
 Additionally, the new design, I believe, will provide a far better user
>>> experience for low-resolution displays
 by providing the docked panels instead of letting everything rest at the
>>> top of the screen, as well as high
 resolution displays by providing different types of components and
>>> getting rid of some of those gradients.
 
 While I can understand the idea of "This is a major change so it should
>>> wait until 1.0.0," I also think that since
 it provides the same functionality and is not breaking in any way, it is
>>> not necessary to do so.
 
 Some key points that I believe we will need for 1.0.0 include
>>> multi-tenant capabilities as well as HA. Changes to
 the UI I think could be accomplished quite a bit before those
>>> capabilities are addressed. So while we could
 bench the changes on a branch for quite a while for 1.0.0, I don't
>>> believe it's really necessary and I think that
 the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
 
 So I'm a +1 for introducing these changes in 0.6.0 and not waiting for a
>>> 1.0.0 release.
 
 Thanks
 -Mark
 
 
> On Jan 6, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Sean Busbey  

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Rob Moran]

Echoing Matt G's last comment regarding changes, with a little more
detail...

These are mainly style changes. The positioning changes are taking current
actions related to operating the flow into a docked panel. That appears
along with a separate one housing navigation controls. The other
positioning change is moving breadcrumbs to the bottom, styled similarly to
the panels in an effort to better connect those pieces to the user's
component interaction on the canvas.


Thanks,
Rob

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Matt Gilman  wrote:

> Tony,
>
> That is correct. The UI redesign is necessary for a 1.0 feature.
> Additionally, the UI changes are limited to styling and positioning of
> certain elements for controlling the dataflow.
>
> Matt
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
>
> > Matt,
> > I'm not sure I followed. I think you said we have two things:
> > A) ui redesign
> > B) multi-tenant dataflow
> >
> > We need A before B, and B will be in 1.0, so we need A in a release
> before
> > 1.0.
> >
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Matt Gilman 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > One of the items that's needed to go over the 1.0 cliff is support for
> > > multi-tenant dataflows. Scoping user authorization to portions of a
> > > dataflow will require a major bump due to API changes and the like.
> Part
> > of
> > > the motivation for this UI redesign is laying the foundation for that
> > > effort. Additionally, we'll get the added benefit of supporting a more
> > > responsive layout and modernized look and feel in the meantime.
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Sean Busbey 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 to "UI redesign warrants a major version increment"
> > > >
> > > > I know that we're "pre 1.0", but this sounds like it's time to figure
> > out
> > > > what we need to include to go over that cliff.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Looks great so far!
> > > > >
> > > > > I saw the target release of 0.6, which surprised me a bit. I would
> > have
> > > > > expected this significant of a change would warrant a major release
> > > > > increment.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Rob Moran 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Greetings ​​NiFi community,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NIFI-1323 [1] has been mentioned in (at least one) previous
> thread.
> > > In
> > > > > case
> > > > > > you are unaware, it involves beginning work on a series of UI
> > > > > improvements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to point your attention to the wiki page [2] where you
> can
> > > > read
> > > > > up
> > > > > > on factors that are driving this effort.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1323
> > > > > > [2]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Redesign+User+Interface
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Rob
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sean
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Mark Payne]

I think we could certainly do that, where we create a separate branch to make 
all those changes.
However, I do think that comes with some downsides.

The UI codebase would likely be very different. Any change that is made to the 
0.x baseline would
have to be made in two codebases, and if the 1.x branch is very different, git 
rebases and the like may not
work very well and trying to keep those changes in sync can quickly become a 
rather large burden and be
very error-prone.

We've also been talking about revamping the UI since around version 0.2.0. It's 
been in discussions for
quite a long time, and it's just taken a while to come to fruition.

Additionally, the new design, I believe, will provide a far better user 
experience for low-resolution displays
by providing the docked panels instead of letting everything rest at the top of 
the screen, as well as high
resolution displays by providing different types of components and getting rid 
of some of those gradients.

While I can understand the idea of "This is a major change so it should wait 
until 1.0.0," I also think that since
it provides the same functionality and is not breaking in any way, it is not 
necessary to do so.

Some key points that I believe we will need for 1.0.0 include multi-tenant 
capabilities as well as HA. Changes to
the UI I think could be accomplished quite a bit before those capabilities are 
addressed. So while we could
bench the changes on a branch for quite a while for 1.0.0, I don't believe it's 
really necessary and I think that
the pros outweigh the cons in this case.

So I'm a +1 for introducing these changes in 0.6.0 and not waiting for a 1.0.0 
release.

Thanks
-Mark


> On Jan 6, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
> 
> Doesn't this mean we could start moving towards 1.0 by keeping these
> UI changes isolated in an appropriate branch and make the completion
> of multitentant dataflow (and whatever other features) the complete
> marker?
> 
> If we need the UI in a distributable form, e.g. so that we can start
> gathering feedback, we can do that by having a 1.0.0-alpha or the
> like.
> 
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Matt Gilman  wrote:
>> Tony,
>> 
>> That is correct. The UI redesign is necessary for a 1.0 feature.
>> Additionally, the UI changes are limited to styling and positioning of
>> certain elements for controlling the dataflow.
>> 
>> Matt
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
>> 
>>> Matt,
>>> I'm not sure I followed. I think you said we have two things:
>>> A) ui redesign
>>> B) multi-tenant dataflow
>>> 
>>> We need A before B, and B will be in 1.0, so we need A in a release before
>>> 1.0.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tony
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Matt Gilman 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 One of the items that's needed to go over the 1.0 cliff is support for
 multi-tenant dataflows. Scoping user authorization to portions of a
 dataflow will require a major bump due to API changes and the like. Part
>>> of
 the motivation for this UI redesign is laying the foundation for that
 effort. Additionally, we'll get the added benefit of supporting a more
 responsive layout and modernized look and feel in the meantime.
 
 Matt
 
 On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
 
> +1 to "UI redesign warrants a major version increment"
> 
> I know that we're "pre 1.0", but this sounds like it's time to figure
>>> out
> what we need to include to go over that cliff.
> 
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
> 
>> Looks great so far!
>> 
>> I saw the target release of 0.6, which surprised me a bit. I would
>>> have
>> expected this significant of a change would warrant a major release
>> increment.
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Rob Moran  wrote:
>> 
>>> Greetings NiFi community,
>>> 
>>> NIFI-1323 [1] has been mentioned in (at least one) previous thread.
 In
>> case
>>> you are unaware, it involves beginning work on a series of UI
>> improvements.
>>> 
>>> I'd like to point your attention to the wiki page [2] where you can
> read
>> up
>>> on factors that are driving this effort.
>>> 
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1323
>>> [2]
>>> 
> 
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Redesign+User+Interface
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rob
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sean
> 
 
>>> 

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Joe Witt]

...I was definitely in the same camp of this is ok until Simon's
email.  If we do alter their existing layout in that it could look
messy I do think that makes it major.

To Tony's point if we make a change that would make existing custom UI
extensions look different then it too is major.

To Tony's other point regarding skinning we do not presently have any
skinning support.  It is probably worth discussing but for now I think
we should document in our version commitment document that this is not
something which is supported.  If skinning support is desirable we
should plan for that.

In short, I do see some compelling reasons to put this in the 1.0 release.

On a related note we have some pretty cool things on the feature
list/roadmap.  I think we're in a much better place now to plan ahead
for these things than we have been and it is a good logical
progression for the community to do some good roadmap planning.  I'll
try to get Tony's roadmap wiki page filled in and send that out to
initiate a good discussion.  *Hopefully* this week.

Thanks
Joe

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
> Is there is a possibility of folks having skinned or extended the UI? Would
> these changes be expected to work on minor version revisions?
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Simon Ball  wrote:
>
>> The new UI looks fantastic, and seems to be heading in a very good
>> direction.
>>
>> One thought I have is around the upgrade experience. Given that we will
>> likely end up with different sized elements to the existing UI, people may
>> find existing flow layouts end up somewhat jumbled with the repositioning
>> of elements. This should be easy to solve, with a migration the existing
>> attributes to a transformed (proportionally scaled?) coordinate system.
>>
>> Impact of this may be limited, but for early adopters who’ve put a lot of
>> investment into their layouts, it has the potential to end up making a mess
>> if we don’t provide some sort of migration.
>>
>> An alternative would be to limit the design to follow the existing
>> bounding box dimensions, but I think this would be a shame, and preclude
>> some of the lovely visual improvements that are emerging in the new mockups.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> > On 6 Jan 2016, at 20:29, Mark Payne  wrote:
>> >
>> > I think we could certainly do that, where we create a separate branch to
>> make all those changes.
>> > However, I do think that comes with some downsides.
>> >
>> > The UI codebase would likely be very different. Any change that is made
>> to the 0.x baseline would
>> > have to be made in two codebases, and if the 1.x branch is very
>> different, git rebases and the like may not
>> > work very well and trying to keep those changes in sync can quickly
>> become a rather large burden and be
>> > very error-prone.
>> >
>> > We've also been talking about revamping the UI since around version
>> 0.2.0. It's been in discussions for
>> > quite a long time, and it's just taken a while to come to fruition.
>> >
>> > Additionally, the new design, I believe, will provide a far better user
>> experience for low-resolution displays
>> > by providing the docked panels instead of letting everything rest at the
>> top of the screen, as well as high
>> > resolution displays by providing different types of components and
>> getting rid of some of those gradients.
>> >
>> > While I can understand the idea of "This is a major change so it should
>> wait until 1.0.0," I also think that since
>> > it provides the same functionality and is not breaking in any way, it is
>> not necessary to do so.
>> >
>> > Some key points that I believe we will need for 1.0.0 include
>> multi-tenant capabilities as well as HA. Changes to
>> > the UI I think could be accomplished quite a bit before those
>> capabilities are addressed. So while we could
>> > bench the changes on a branch for quite a while for 1.0.0, I don't
>> believe it's really necessary and I think that
>> > the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
>> >
>> > So I'm a +1 for introducing these changes in 0.6.0 and not waiting for a
>> 1.0.0 release.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > -Mark
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Jan 6, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't this mean we could start moving towards 1.0 by keeping these
>> >> UI changes isolated in an appropriate branch and make the completion
>> >> of multitentant dataflow (and whatever other features) the complete
>> >> marker?
>> >>
>> >> If we need the UI in a distributable form, e.g. so that we can start
>> >> gathering feedback, we can do that by having a 1.0.0-alpha or the
>> >> like.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Matt Gilman 
>> wrote:
>> >>> Tony,
>> >>>
>> >>> That is correct. The UI redesign is necessary for a 1.0 feature.
>> >>> Additionally, the UI changes are limited to styling and positioning of
>> >>> certain elements for controlling the 

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Jennifer Barnabee]

Hi Rob,
I think the UI improvements look really good, and this is very exciting.

I wonder if there has been any thought around making each component type
look a little more distinguishable. That is to say, processors, process
groups, and remote process groups are all still very similar looking. So,
just at a glance, it isn't easy to tell one from another without taking a
closer look.

Other than that, I love the icons and the way you have moved things around
and made better use of the real estate on the screen. Everything looks more
refined as well. The styling is really nice.
-Jenn

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Rob Moran  wrote:

> Greetings ​​NiFi community,
>
> NIFI-1323 [1] has been mentioned in (at least one) previous thread. In case
> you are unaware, it involves beginning work on a series of UI improvements.
>
> I'd like to point your attention to the wiki page [2] where you can read up
> on factors that are driving this effort.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1323
> [2]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Redesign+User+Interface
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Joe Witt]

Too funny Jenn "I wonder if there has been any thought around making
each component type
look a little more distinguishable"

I said the same thing to Rob...and then realized I had no idea what
else would work :-)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Jennifer Barnabee
 wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> I think the UI improvements look really good, and this is very exciting.
>
> I wonder if there has been any thought around making each component type
> look a little more distinguishable. That is to say, processors, process
> groups, and remote process groups are all still very similar looking. So,
> just at a glance, it isn't easy to tell one from another without taking a
> closer look.
>
> Other than that, I love the icons and the way you have moved things around
> and made better use of the real estate on the screen. Everything looks more
> refined as well. The styling is really nice.
> -Jenn
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Rob Moran  wrote:
>
>> Greetings NiFi community,
>>
>> NIFI-1323 [1] has been mentioned in (at least one) previous thread. In case
>> you are unaware, it involves beginning work on a series of UI improvements.
>>
>> I'd like to point your attention to the wiki page [2] where you can read up
>> on factors that are driving this effort.
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1323
>> [2]
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Redesign+User+Interface
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rob
>>

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Tony Kurc]

Is there is a possibility of folks having skinned or extended the UI? Would
these changes be expected to work on minor version revisions?

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Simon Ball  wrote:

> The new UI looks fantastic, and seems to be heading in a very good
> direction.
>
> One thought I have is around the upgrade experience. Given that we will
> likely end up with different sized elements to the existing UI, people may
> find existing flow layouts end up somewhat jumbled with the repositioning
> of elements. This should be easy to solve, with a migration the existing
> attributes to a transformed (proportionally scaled?) coordinate system.
>
> Impact of this may be limited, but for early adopters who’ve put a lot of
> investment into their layouts, it has the potential to end up making a mess
> if we don’t provide some sort of migration.
>
> An alternative would be to limit the design to follow the existing
> bounding box dimensions, but I think this would be a shame, and preclude
> some of the lovely visual improvements that are emerging in the new mockups.
>
> Simon
>
> > On 6 Jan 2016, at 20:29, Mark Payne  wrote:
> >
> > I think we could certainly do that, where we create a separate branch to
> make all those changes.
> > However, I do think that comes with some downsides.
> >
> > The UI codebase would likely be very different. Any change that is made
> to the 0.x baseline would
> > have to be made in two codebases, and if the 1.x branch is very
> different, git rebases and the like may not
> > work very well and trying to keep those changes in sync can quickly
> become a rather large burden and be
> > very error-prone.
> >
> > We've also been talking about revamping the UI since around version
> 0.2.0. It's been in discussions for
> > quite a long time, and it's just taken a while to come to fruition.
> >
> > Additionally, the new design, I believe, will provide a far better user
> experience for low-resolution displays
> > by providing the docked panels instead of letting everything rest at the
> top of the screen, as well as high
> > resolution displays by providing different types of components and
> getting rid of some of those gradients.
> >
> > While I can understand the idea of "This is a major change so it should
> wait until 1.0.0," I also think that since
> > it provides the same functionality and is not breaking in any way, it is
> not necessary to do so.
> >
> > Some key points that I believe we will need for 1.0.0 include
> multi-tenant capabilities as well as HA. Changes to
> > the UI I think could be accomplished quite a bit before those
> capabilities are addressed. So while we could
> > bench the changes on a branch for quite a while for 1.0.0, I don't
> believe it's really necessary and I think that
> > the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
> >
> > So I'm a +1 for introducing these changes in 0.6.0 and not waiting for a
> 1.0.0 release.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Mark
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 6, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
> >>
> >> Doesn't this mean we could start moving towards 1.0 by keeping these
> >> UI changes isolated in an appropriate branch and make the completion
> >> of multitentant dataflow (and whatever other features) the complete
> >> marker?
> >>
> >> If we need the UI in a distributable form, e.g. so that we can start
> >> gathering feedback, we can do that by having a 1.0.0-alpha or the
> >> like.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Matt Gilman 
> wrote:
> >>> Tony,
> >>>
> >>> That is correct. The UI redesign is necessary for a 1.0 feature.
> >>> Additionally, the UI changes are limited to styling and positioning of
> >>> certain elements for controlling the dataflow.
> >>>
> >>> Matt
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
> >>>
>  Matt,
>  I'm not sure I followed. I think you said we have two things:
>  A) ui redesign
>  B) multi-tenant dataflow
> 
>  We need A before B, and B will be in 1.0, so we need A in a release
> before
>  1.0.
> 
> 
>  Tony
> 
>  On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Matt Gilman 
>  wrote:
> 
> > One of the items that's needed to go over the 1.0 cliff is support
> for
> > multi-tenant dataflows. Scoping user authorization to portions of a
> > dataflow will require a major bump due to API changes and the like.
> Part
>  of
> > the motivation for this UI redesign is laying the foundation for that
> > effort. Additionally, we'll get the added benefit of supporting a
> more
> > responsive layout and modernized look and feel in the meantime.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Sean Busbey 
> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 to "UI redesign warrants a major version increment"
> >>
> >> I know that we're "pre 1.0", but this sounds like it's time to
> 

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Mark Payne]

I think we've tried to be pretty clear about what we consider to be a "backward 
compatible" change in the
versioning guide that we have provided. Specifically, others should be able to 
build upon the nifi-api, the rest api,
and util packages that are commonly depended on like processor-utils (which 
contains most of the standard validators),
and the site-to-site client.

Personally, I would not expect any skinning to be compatible even between bug 
releases, because there's no specific api that
is provided for it.

> On Jan 6, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
> 
> Is there is a possibility of folks having skinned or extended the UI? Would
> these changes be expected to work on minor version revisions?
> 
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Simon Ball  wrote:
> 
>> The new UI looks fantastic, and seems to be heading in a very good
>> direction.
>> 
>> One thought I have is around the upgrade experience. Given that we will
>> likely end up with different sized elements to the existing UI, people may
>> find existing flow layouts end up somewhat jumbled with the repositioning
>> of elements. This should be easy to solve, with a migration the existing
>> attributes to a transformed (proportionally scaled?) coordinate system.
>> 
>> Impact of this may be limited, but for early adopters who’ve put a lot of
>> investment into their layouts, it has the potential to end up making a mess
>> if we don’t provide some sort of migration.
>> 
>> An alternative would be to limit the design to follow the existing
>> bounding box dimensions, but I think this would be a shame, and preclude
>> some of the lovely visual improvements that are emerging in the new mockups.
>> 
>> Simon
>> 
>>> On 6 Jan 2016, at 20:29, Mark Payne  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think we could certainly do that, where we create a separate branch to
>> make all those changes.
>>> However, I do think that comes with some downsides.
>>> 
>>> The UI codebase would likely be very different. Any change that is made
>> to the 0.x baseline would
>>> have to be made in two codebases, and if the 1.x branch is very
>> different, git rebases and the like may not
>>> work very well and trying to keep those changes in sync can quickly
>> become a rather large burden and be
>>> very error-prone.
>>> 
>>> We've also been talking about revamping the UI since around version
>> 0.2.0. It's been in discussions for
>>> quite a long time, and it's just taken a while to come to fruition.
>>> 
>>> Additionally, the new design, I believe, will provide a far better user
>> experience for low-resolution displays
>>> by providing the docked panels instead of letting everything rest at the
>> top of the screen, as well as high
>>> resolution displays by providing different types of components and
>> getting rid of some of those gradients.
>>> 
>>> While I can understand the idea of "This is a major change so it should
>> wait until 1.0.0," I also think that since
>>> it provides the same functionality and is not breaking in any way, it is
>> not necessary to do so.
>>> 
>>> Some key points that I believe we will need for 1.0.0 include
>> multi-tenant capabilities as well as HA. Changes to
>>> the UI I think could be accomplished quite a bit before those
>> capabilities are addressed. So while we could
>>> bench the changes on a branch for quite a while for 1.0.0, I don't
>> believe it's really necessary and I think that
>>> the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
>>> 
>>> So I'm a +1 for introducing these changes in 0.6.0 and not waiting for a
>> 1.0.0 release.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> -Mark
>>> 
>>> 
 On Jan 6, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
 
 Doesn't this mean we could start moving towards 1.0 by keeping these
 UI changes isolated in an appropriate branch and make the completion
 of multitentant dataflow (and whatever other features) the complete
 marker?
 
 If we need the UI in a distributable form, e.g. so that we can start
 gathering feedback, we can do that by having a 1.0.0-alpha or the
 like.
 
 On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Matt Gilman 
>> wrote:
> Tony,
> 
> That is correct. The UI redesign is necessary for a 1.0 feature.
> Additionally, the UI changes are limited to styling and positioning of
> certain elements for controlling the dataflow.
> 
> Matt
> 
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
> 
>> Matt,
>> I'm not sure I followed. I think you said we have two things:
>> A) ui redesign
>> B) multi-tenant dataflow
>> 
>> We need A before B, and B will be in 1.0, so we need A in a release
>> before
>> 1.0.
>> 
>> 
>> Tony
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Matt Gilman 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> One of the items that's needed to go over the 1.0 cliff is support
>> for

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

[Simon Ball]

The new UI looks fantastic, and seems to be heading in a very good direction.

One thought I have is around the upgrade experience. Given that we will likely 
end up with different sized elements to the existing UI, people may find 
existing flow layouts end up somewhat jumbled with the repositioning of 
elements. This should be easy to solve, with a migration the existing 
attributes to a transformed (proportionally scaled?) coordinate system.

Impact of this may be limited, but for early adopters who’ve put a lot of 
investment into their layouts, it has the potential to end up making a mess if 
we don’t provide some sort of migration. 

An alternative would be to limit the design to follow the existing bounding box 
dimensions, but I think this would be a shame, and preclude some of the lovely 
visual improvements that are emerging in the new mockups. 

Simon

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 20:29, Mark Payne  wrote:
> 
> I think we could certainly do that, where we create a separate branch to make 
> all those changes.
> However, I do think that comes with some downsides.
> 
> The UI codebase would likely be very different. Any change that is made to 
> the 0.x baseline would
> have to be made in two codebases, and if the 1.x branch is very different, 
> git rebases and the like may not
> work very well and trying to keep those changes in sync can quickly become a 
> rather large burden and be
> very error-prone.
> 
> We've also been talking about revamping the UI since around version 0.2.0. 
> It's been in discussions for
> quite a long time, and it's just taken a while to come to fruition.
> 
> Additionally, the new design, I believe, will provide a far better user 
> experience for low-resolution displays
> by providing the docked panels instead of letting everything rest at the top 
> of the screen, as well as high
> resolution displays by providing different types of components and getting 
> rid of some of those gradients.
> 
> While I can understand the idea of "This is a major change so it should wait 
> until 1.0.0," I also think that since
> it provides the same functionality and is not breaking in any way, it is not 
> necessary to do so.
> 
> Some key points that I believe we will need for 1.0.0 include multi-tenant 
> capabilities as well as HA. Changes to
> the UI I think could be accomplished quite a bit before those capabilities 
> are addressed. So while we could
> bench the changes on a branch for quite a while for 1.0.0, I don't believe 
> it's really necessary and I think that
> the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
> 
> So I'm a +1 for introducing these changes in 0.6.0 and not waiting for a 
> 1.0.0 release.
> 
> Thanks
> -Mark
> 
> 
>> On Jan 6, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
>> 
>> Doesn't this mean we could start moving towards 1.0 by keeping these
>> UI changes isolated in an appropriate branch and make the completion
>> of multitentant dataflow (and whatever other features) the complete
>> marker?
>> 
>> If we need the UI in a distributable form, e.g. so that we can start
>> gathering feedback, we can do that by having a 1.0.0-alpha or the
>> like.
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Matt Gilman  wrote:
>>> Tony,
>>> 
>>> That is correct. The UI redesign is necessary for a 1.0 feature.
>>> Additionally, the UI changes are limited to styling and positioning of
>>> certain elements for controlling the dataflow.
>>> 
>>> Matt
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
>>> 
 Matt,
 I'm not sure I followed. I think you said we have two things:
 A) ui redesign
 B) multi-tenant dataflow
 
 We need A before B, and B will be in 1.0, so we need A in a release before
 1.0.
 
 
 Tony
 
 On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Matt Gilman 
 wrote:
 
> One of the items that's needed to go over the 1.0 cliff is support for
> multi-tenant dataflows. Scoping user authorization to portions of a
> dataflow will require a major bump due to API changes and the like. Part
 of
> the motivation for this UI redesign is laying the foundation for that
> effort. Additionally, we'll get the added benefit of supporting a more
> responsive layout and modernized look and feel in the meantime.
> 
> Matt
> 
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
> 
>> +1 to "UI redesign warrants a major version increment"
>> 
>> I know that we're "pre 1.0", but this sounds like it's time to figure
 out
>> what we need to include to go over that cliff.
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
>> 
>>> Looks great so far!
>>> 
>>> I saw the target release of 0.6, which surprised me a bit. I would
 have
>>> expected this significant of a change would warrant a major release
>>>