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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> > >
