> there's been a lot of discussion over the years about the > microkernel approach
Just to clarify: I don't think it was realistic to expect that end-users would have to cook their own TiddlyWiki from various modules While there might be some minor components that might be externalized, the standard TiddlyWiki distribution should be a stable platform common to all regular users. Someone who wants a more customized version of TiddlyWiki can do so by using Cook to assemble a version tailored to their needs. (Doing so is likely to result in incompatibilities with certain plugins.) > on the other side DOUBLING functionality, which for no uses or plugins > are existing yet - as this seems the case with jQuery.twStylesheet, > because there are already existing TW ways to toggle css. I think this is the basic misunderstanding. There is no doubling of functionality here. The code that makes StyleSheet et al. work is essentially still the same. It's only been refactored[1] (rearranged internally) to be a more distinct module - in this case a reusable jQuery plugin - which TiddlyWiki itself makes use of. > Please don't take my differing opinion - by trying to look at it from > a bigger perspective - the wrong way Your thoughts are appreciated, as they highlight the need to more clearly communicate changes - even though it's not always easy to explain the significance of certain technical decisions. > this just has a little bid the flavor of going the corporate way Believe me, none of the core developers are "enterprisey" in the least, and there is no pressure from BT to change that. It's also worth pointing out here that the relation between Osmosoft and the core-development team is mostly coincidental - it's primarily that way because no outside developer has stepped up to become a regular core contributor. TiddlyWiki is neither owned nor controlled by BT/Osmosoft; it is still a community project.[2] My own involvement, for example, is driven pretty much entirely by personal motives rather than some corporate or financial interest (seeing as I'm writing this very message on a Sunday morning). Yet (paraphrasing Chris[3]) there seems to be a perpetuating notion that Osmosoft is solely responsible for development, documentation, communication etc. - that I believe to be wrong and unfair. As previously mentioned, I believe these discussions are beyond the scope of this particular thread. -- F. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_refactoring [2] http://tiddlywiki.org/wiki/UnaMesa [3] http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWikiDev/msg/68c66fe468f8c29b --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
