Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

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

RE: Redesign User Interface (UI)

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

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

+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

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

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.

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

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

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

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

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.

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

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

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

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

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

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

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

...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

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

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.

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

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

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

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. >

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

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

Re: Redesign User Interface (UI)

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