nifi-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Gilman <matt.c.gil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design
Date Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:42:38 GMT
Brandon,

Selecting which relationship and/or which input/output port a connection is
connected to is not what's in question here. That is absolutely required
when creating the connection. I would equate that to selecting the type of
processor. What was referenced initially as being inconsistent was the
presence of the Settings tab in the New Connection Dialog and not having
any available configuration in the New Processor Dialog.

Matt

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Brandon DeVries <brd@jhu.edu> wrote:

> Matt,
>
> If I understand what you're saying, it's that the goal is to get
> components on to the graph with as little input as possible.  If so, then
> my argument is that a connection isn't a component in the same way a
> processor / group / funnel is, and applying the same rules for the sake of
> consistency would be unnecessarily confusing.  Processors can conceivably
> have a lot of required configuration, and deferring that in favor of laying
> out the flow makes sense.  A connection has one piece of required
> configuration... and it's a check box.  If you're drawing a connection, you
> would think you'd know what relationship you were making the connection
> for.  If you don't know what relationship you want, you probably shouldn't
> be making a connection.  Deferring that configuration doesn't make sense to
> me.  Again, obviously my opinion, but I don't see the gain.  Additionally,
> I can imagine trying to troubleshoot a user's flow, and trying to explain
> that just because there is a line between the two processors doesn't
> actually mean they're connected...
>
>
> Brandon
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:50 PM Jennifer Barnabee <
> jennifer.barnabee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Rob,
>> I also like enhancements 1 & 2. For the ability to pin processors or pull
>> recent/popular processors from a user-generated list, can we make that
>> something that is expandable/collapsible? While building a flow, I think
>> people might want that type of thing open. But then later, while working
>> with a flow, they'd want it out of the way.
>> Great ideas!
>> -Jenn
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Rob Moran <rmoran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There has been recent discussion around UI enhancements with the goal of
>>> streamlining visual flow design. Please consider the following enhancements
>>> and concepts for proposed solutions. Do you have any objections? If so,
>>> please share your thoughts and ideas for alternate solutions to streamline
>>> visual flow design in NiFi's GUI.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Enhancement 1*Enable quicker, more efficient access to both known and
>>> not yet known processors.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Issue*The current interaction of dropping a processor on the graph and
>>> being prompted with a dialog helps a user who does not know exactly which
>>> one they need. However, as the number of processors increase, the current
>>> methods of finding what you need become increasingly difficult. And for
>>> those users who know exactly what processor they want, routine interaction
>>> with the dialog becomes rather cumbersome.
>>>
>>> *Concept for Proposed Solution*
>>> Present logical groupings of processors to the user. Ideas include
>>> usage-generated categories like ‘recent’ and ‘popular,’ along with
>>> categories such as those defined by the Enterprise Integration Patterns
>>> (e.g., mediate, route, transform) and perhaps further subcategories if
>>> applicable. These options would be accessible from the main UI as well as
>>> the add processor dialog.
>>>
>>> Other ideas include 'pinning' processors you routinely use for quick
>>> access, setting a default drag-n-drop processor, and assigning keyboard
>>> shortcuts to quickly add a favorite to the graph.
>>>
>>> Design decisions made here could also serve as a model for placing other
>>> elements onto the graph such as templates.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Enhancement 2*Provide visual distinction to processor types.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Issue*When viewing a flow on the graph, all processor blocks look the
>>> same. As a result, users must rely on processor names alone to interpret
>>> what they are doing and how the given flow is working together.
>>>
>>> *Concept for Proposed Solution*
>>> Introduce some combination of iconography, unique styling, and more
>>> descriptive labeling to processor blocks. As mentioned earlier, looking to
>>> the Enterprise Integration Patterns could provide cues for visually
>>> distinct icons and labeling. Unique styling could occur at various zoom
>>> levels and/or screen resolution to better respond to user needs.
>>>
>>> *Enhancement 3*
>>> Give users the choice to be prompted immediately with a configuration
>>> dialog after they place a processor, draw a connection, etc. on the graph.
>>>
>>> *Issue*
>>> Currently there is inconsistency with the interaction. Place a processor
>>> - nothing. Draw a connection - configuration dialog pops up.
>>>
>>> *Concept for Proposed Solution*
>>> Part 1 - Decide on a consistent default behavior. Part 2 - Provide the
>>> user the ability to reverse the behavior. One thought is to include a
>>> toggle in each configuration dialog giving the user control over the
>>> behavior while in context. Additionally, there could be a user preferences
>>> area where they could make global changes. A user preferences area could
>>> come into play with potential solutions proposed in Enhancement 1 as well.
>>> --
>>> Rob
>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message