> On the other hand, it doesn't really address the slow down on startup > through the invoking of all systemConfig javascript functions, in many > sessions without the need at all.
Unlike some plugins, during startup QuickEditPlugin simply defines a set of functions. It doesn't perform any 'tiddler lookups' or other compute-intensive processing. Thus, the 'slow down on startup' for this plugin is virtually *nil*. > The times I push a EditBar button on average is maybe 10 - thereby not > constantly, but merely redefining maybe a 10th only, with a 10 times > less slowdown - of what QuickEditPlugin does at startup all at once > and with full force. While often not even needed later on. The plugin defines the support functions exactly *once* (at startup). In comparison, the EditBar script redeclares those functions every time the toolbar is *displayed*, even if you never click on a single button... and, given that you always show the toolbar when editing a tiddler, the 'scripted' approach will be invoked many more times than the plugin code. (note: the issue here is not processing *speed*... it is the potential for *memory* usage problems) > On the opposite: Now the "[edit..]" under the 'custom' button opens > the second, and the "[edit..]" under the "font" buttons opens the > first of only two EditBar tiddlers. The custom definitions are placed > in the first section visible at the top, right on clicking this > commands. And I think it's much easier this way, also to add custom > formats to the other predefined definitions. However, if you make a simple typing mistake while editing, it could break the entire toolbar, rather than merely having a somewhat messed up list of fonts or custom formats. I see no advantage to exposing the *code* to unintended changes just because you want to modify some supporting *data*. > This is the best reason for limiting QuickEditPackage to 2 tiddlers > only, and making the many times multiplied tables and documentation > about basic tiddler transclusion obsolete. Although this information is very important and *must* be present in each tiddler, I too want to reduce the redundant content to a minimum. To this end, I've just made edits to the entire set of QuickEdit_* tiddlers to trim some of the overhead from the slice tables and documentation. All the updated tiddlers are currently marked as v2.4.3 > not invoking all javascript > functions on startup while they may often not even be used later on - > but instead only that little piece of javascript by one button click, > run and processed only when that little piece is really needed. Again, this is not correct: the code in EditBar is invoked *every* time the toolbar is *rendered*... thus, it costs much less to declare the functions in a plugin invoked once during startup rather than every time any tiddler is edited. > Not to talk about the reduction in size, which could be much more if > the code would be compressed - as it has been done with an other > plugin of such a big > size:http://tiddlywiki.abego-software.de/#YourSearchPlugin I have deliberately choosen to deliver my work in a fully human- readable format. That way, it's possible for other people to actually look at the code to diagnose any bugs (gasp!) that they might encounter... or perhaps just to see how things work. In addition, maintaining and publishing both an uncompressed *and* a compressed version of the same plugin would create more work for me (as well as taking up extra space, since I would still need to distribute *both* versions on TiddlyTools). > It makes it really complicated if you > consider this old, but perfect html script fitting the bill, not as a > very useful tool for websites worthy of sharing. Perhaps I should have been more clear in what I was trying to communicate, which was that I *prefer* that this particular script not be redistributed... primarily because I have completely re-written it as a plugin, and I *want* people to use that up-to-date, actively maintained plugin code, rather than staying with older script code that I don't want to support any longer. > However, there is no way I can argue what you personally prefer to be > shared, even when I really can't follow your reasoning here, and why > you would revoke your stated policy in this case. ... > Though sad, not only about being unable to share, but about not being > able to put it to good use as explained above - and having to use hard > coded iframes or simple links, which take away from the site instead - > I will comply :-( In all honesty, I'm not sure it's entirely a matter of *reasoning* on my part... there's a certain amount of 'it just doesn't feel quite right' involved as well. In any case, all of the functionality you want to use *is* provided by MiniBrowserPlugin, so you should simply use the published plugin rather than taking away anything from your site's usability. > Also with the implication, that I would have to take it down - if I > couldn't help with a bug and my limited abilities - while with your > plugins instant support is almost guaranteed. Indeed.... my default response to questions about any *retired* code that I am no longer distributing is to point people to the replacement plugin that I *am* distributing. This is similar to the way that I no longer provide support for TiddlyTools plugins under TW1.2.x or earlier, and simply tell them to upgrade to the current TW core (TW2.5) and then re-install up-to-date versions of the plugins and see if the problem just 'disappears'. > I hope you''ll give this some second thoughts, and leave some of your > really amazing show case inventions open to modifications, by > continuing to allow trimmed variant versions for practicality. You > could even feel glad about others doing it for everybody else :-) Please don't generalize the discussion to encompass all of my 'inventions'... my reponses in this thread were specifically regarding use of the old MiniBrowser script vs the up-to-date MiniBrowserPlugin. Although I'll continue to think about this and may still change my mind, I just don't feel that you've made a *compelling* case for continuing to distribute the older, retired script, specifically because a perfectly fine replacement plugin is currently available. Also, to be precise, I haven't "revoked permission to use and share variants of my scripts": you *can* share this script if you feel it is absolutely necessary... but I'd still really *prefer* that you just use the full MiniBrowserPlugin instead http://www.TiddlyTools.com/#MiniBrowserPlugin > kind regards... same here, enjoy, -e --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWiki?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
