> That's my main concern. TW version 2.5 can already be considered as a > fork, since in this thread it has clearly explained, that a standard > TiddlyWiki now serves 2 purposes, for TW users and developers - as it > has been until recently - but also as a code repository for external > jQuery plugin developers - which is really unique.
I'm not sure what you mean by the the "code repository for external jQuery plugin developers". To be clear, there have been three changes associated with jQuery: - the inclusion of the jQuery library by default; this is the decision that you go on to critique. There was a fair amount of discussion before we did this; the goal was to enable TiddlyWiki to benefit from the much higher quality browser compatibility layer in jQuery - the refactoring of some internal TiddlyWiki functions to use jQuery functionality where it improves performance or code size - the refactoring of some internal TiddlyWiki functions so that they can more easily be reused. This is something that's happened since the beginning of TiddlyWiki; other open source developers plucking out the unique bits of functionality in TiddlyWiki for their own projects. All we've done is rearrange the code to make that easier. It sounds like one of your concerns is that making this functionality into a jQuery plugin is akin to bloat, which isn't really the case. > The focus has already changed from TW, as now initially and > necessarily much more efforts has to be given for advancing this new > kind of jquery plugins, for which only few or no purposes are > available yet - or already existing the TW way, plus ironing bugs > which such a refactoring might bring. This is such a great task... I'm not sure what you mean here. > .. I slowly start to see the need for a user only oriented fork again > - at least for the next 2-3 years. I need to understand more about why you think this would be desirable, and how it would differ from the TiddlyWiki we've got today. > This can't be a one man task. Nevertheless, how about starting a TW > fork where jQuerry can be included via MarkupPreHead, as it has always > been the case, but doesn't has to? While including recent bugfixes and > attracting outside developers again, to contribute and being part of a > TiddlyWikis evolution without dependency to jQuery. > > What does everyone think? I'd like to understand more why you think that the integration of jQuery may be such a big problem. Is it primarily the issue of code size? > Clear communication has to occur whenever or wherever bluredness > happens to be perceived. Otherwise it isn't really out in the open > anymore ..therefore, lets discuss it here and now with everyone > invited to participate - with as much mutual respect and contrarily as > possible. If people are interested, we could set up another conference call for a discussion as well, Best wishes Jeremy -- Jeremy Ruston mailto:[email protected] http://www.tiddlywiki.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
