There are compelling pros and easily identifiable cons to placing UI components into their own project. I don't have anything to add there.
Please, however, consider a different name. "Fluid Design System" is generic to the point of giving no cognitive clue about what it actually is. And without that clue, it's no different than a shorter made-up word. Also, a quick Google search doesn't indicate that it's an industry accepted phrase that conveys meaning. Consider: Fluidifi NiFi Fluid UI NiFi UI Components NiFi FDS Thanks, -- Mike On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Scott Aslan <scottyas...@gmail.com> wrote: > Joe, > > Yes, extract out the FDS. > > As for a release schedule, I don't think there would need to be one. We > would put out new releases as needed for new features or components. These > releases would be totally independent of NiFi or NiFi Registry. The > intention with this project is to follow semantic versioning and avoid > making breaking changes so using this library in NiFi or the NiFi Registry > would be as simple as updating the version number in the package.json and > rebuilding the application. > > As for validation of releases I have a couple of ideas. I envisioned this > code base would follow a RTC paradigm and the initial release of this FDS > NgModule would include unit test coverage of all the existing > features/components/utils. Any new features/components/utils would require > adequate test coverage before being merged to NiFi FDS master. We could > also provide a demo application that users can build and deploy locally to > allow for human verification or even e2e testing... > > I took the liberty of standing up a repo to give everyone a better idea of > what we are all talking about. > https://github.com/scottyaslan/fluid-design-system > > Since no server or backend is required to run these UI/UX components I also > stood a demo of this as a github.io page here: > https://scottyaslan.github.io/fluid-design-system/ > <https://scottyaslan.github.io/fluid-design-system/> > > -Scotty > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Scott > > > > Ok so extract out the fluid design work you started with NiFi Registry > > to its own codebase which can be rev'd and published to NPM making it > > easier to consume/reuse across NiFi projects and offers better > > consistency. This sounds interesting. > > > > In thinking through the additional community effort or the effort > > trade-off: > > How often do you anticipate we'd be doing releases (and thus > > validation/voting) for this? > > How often would those differ from when we'd want to do a NiFi or NiFi > > Registry release? > > How do you envision the community would be able to help vet/validate > > releases of these modules? > > > > Thanks > > Joe > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Scott Aslan <scottyas...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > NiFi Community, > > > > > > I'd like to initiate a discussion around creating a sub-project of NiFi > > to > > > encompass the Fluid Design System NgModule created during the > development > > > of the NiFi Registry. A possible name for this sub-project is simply > > > "NiFi Fluid > > > Design System". The idea would be to create a sub-project that > > distributes > > > an atomic set of high quality, reuse-able, theme-able, and testable > UI/UX > > > components, fonts, and other JS modules for use across the various web > > > applications throughout the NiFi universe (uNiFiverse???). Both NiFi > and > > > NiFi Registry web applications would eventually leverage this module > via > > > npm. This approach will enable us to provide our users with a > consistent > > > experience across web applications. Creating a sub-project would also > > allow > > > the FDS code to evolve independently of NiFi/NiFi registry and be > > released > > > on it's own timeline. In addition, it would make tracking issues/work > > much > > > clearer through a separate JIRA. > > > > > > Please discuss and provide and thoughts or feedback. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Scotty > > >