Dear Eric, thanks for the reply.
>> Now I was able to test both gollumn and org-ehtml it puts me into a dilemma. >> > > Multiple viable options for Org-mode wikis is a great problem to have. Indeed it is as usual with FOSS all those pesty options to choice from. Why couldn't I just trough my money to multi-billion dollar companies and use whatever the selling department thought would be best for me. Silly me.... ;) > See the "Integrating with version control" section of the org-ehtml > README [1]. It provides VC integration with just a couple of lines of > Emacs Lisp which could be added to the webserver's Emacs config. I didn't test this yet, but read about it. I will give it a try again. >> Gollumn itself seems to run on the shoulder of giants and keep itself >> rather small. > > Org-ehtml is itself just a tiny hack which (I think) neatly combines the > power of the new Org export system, and the power of Elnode running on > top of a full fledged Emacs instance. Org-ehtml is more than two orders > of magnitude smaller than gollum (judging by compressed source code). Well indeed this was a stupid comparison. Sure org-ehtml is even smaller and stands on the shoulder giants too, namely of org-mode and emacs.... > Understood. I hope I haven't wasted your time and I appreciated that > you got org-ehtml running. Gollum is a very mature option, and is > probably your best bet unless you fall into one of the following. Wasted my time?! ;) Are you kidding me. It was very informative and fun. Seriously, I always enjoy having org-babel or in this case e-html related problems, just for the joy I have to talk too you ;) There is still no decision made yet and I guess it is even not a time critical decision. Since both systems use org-mode files I could easily switch between them any time later. > 1. need more esoteric features of Org-mode or I frighten looking at the feature test from Karl Voit (https://github.com/novoid/github-orgmode-tests), the features need not to be sooo esoteric at all. > 2. you like the idea of being able to run arbitrary Emacs Lisp as part > of the editing process or Yes you are right, thinking about, the advantage would be that I could use all org-mode related code and do not need to reimplement it in any other language. E.g., one could get a pretty printed table in text form easily calling org-table-align, or convert copy and pasted CSV data into a table calling org-table-convert. However, that would require an extension of the current web-based editor. > 3. (like me) you don't have ruby installed on your system and a ruby web > server seems like a lot of bloat for a wiki Here I would need to give gollumn the credit that you can use another web server as well e.g. apache should work. > The reason Gollum is so much larger is because it has a large team of > people adding the many handlers for edge cases and extra bells and > whistles which make for a robust tool. Sure, and please understand that I do not want to compare them one-by-one. It wasn't my intention to do any ranking. Just looking for the best solution for my task. If a 5-liner bash script from 1995 could do what I want I would be equally happy too ;) > My goal with org-ehtml was to produce a tiny working and (most > importantly) easily hackable core. I don't have time to really flesh it > out myself, but I was/am hoping that someone interested in doing some > elisp and web programming would/will find it fun to extend the existing > proof-of-concept implementation. I think it could easily grow into a > full featured Org-mode backed wiki, or online TODO tracker, or online > bug tracking database. I understand and I would be happy to be part of it. I simply need to test a bit more which way to go. I like the idea to use emacs and the "real" exporter. Just need to think of the non-orgers... > For speed reasons you'd probably still want the constant Emacs session > running, and you may open up many of the same security concerns. Yep, I was thinking about that and thought already about a emacs daemon running. You are right, that might put me into the same situation I have using org-ehtml directly. Would it be possible/reasonable to create something which use e.g. apache or lighthttpd as webbrowser and some javascript to implement the editor functions and emacs+org-mode purely to generate the html pages? Using a well established webserver, would give me at least the illusion that it might be safer. There are some editors implemented in javascript already. Maybe one could use one of them? I think it all condense down to the phrase I gave in my early post: org-ehtml: org-mode with editable html export and a minimal webserver gollumn: ruby-based wiki-system which supports (partially) org-mode syntax Both are very different concepts with a different idea behind it. Thanks again for all the infos and support Torsten
