+1 for this: "[...]little applications as demonstration models for people to try and see some of the advantages.
2009/7/8 Morris Gray <[email protected]>: > > On Jul 8, 8:34 am, wolfgang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for your efforts to create consent. But if there is passion for >> a slim, stable legacy TiddlyWiki - where jQuery remains optional - >> developer will step up and your team can concentrate on your task >> without becoming unnecessarily diverted. I agree with Saq, that if the >> core remains perceived the sole responsibility of Osmosoft, this very >> fast could lead to a dangerous situation.. > > I swore I would comment no more on this subject on the Developers > group. When it comes to this subject it is like talking into the > wind. So before I go back to trying to make practical applications > for TiddlyWiki I'll just say this. > > I'm not sure if there are enough worldly wise people here to see the > unraveling of a cohesive group taking place. An unraveling that can > easily slide into a lowering of moral and dampening enthusiasm for > both users and developers. > > The seeds to this potential unraveling were sown when the decision was > made to drastically change the TiddlyWiki core and subject all users > to the vagueness of unfinished software on a regular basis for months > or years. > > For the core developers it can be demoralizing because they will feel > unappreciated. The fear of bringing an avalanche of criticism with > each bug, not to mention breaking favourite plugins, will slow > development and quell enthusiasm for them. > > Users who long for a stable platform to get real-world applications > done will balk at every disruption to their progress and the extra > uncertainty and distracting discussions that follow. > > The hard-headed unwavering decision to ignore having a continuing > stable platform while continuing with a drastic revamp of the core > without having defined separate branches is dangerous. It will create > a de facto set of branches anyhow but more importantly it will put > users and developers into two separate camps. > > The argument that users need not follow the the upgrades is a weak one > indeed for it actually fosters those de facto branches mentioned > above. What choice does that leave users, to go out on a limb that > that has been sawed off behind them, or follow the uncertain path > development that doesn't really know where it's going. > > The natural flow of TiddlyWiki being improved and tweaked with each > new release will be broken by changing fundamental core functions and > if continued will created a separate branch whether you admit it or > not. How can any application developer feel their product is reliable > enough to be released to the world knowing that the next time their > user upgrades the core something might break. > > The changes to the core using jQuery is a good one, holding great > promise. If it is continued as a separate development it will cause > no disruption. People will be eager to follow its progress and help > with the testing and will be drawn to it through curiosity, and > concern they may be left behind, instead of considering it a threat. > > Whatever extra work separate branches create, whatever extra time it > takes is worth it because the real or imagined uncertainties of not > doing so will slow its progress even more, or worse divide and lose > both developers and users along the way. > > If I was 'in the same room' as you I would emphatically say this - for > it will cost you nothing and you will gain much > > Take the 2.5.x development out of the backstage upgrade path to foster > certainty for users. > > Continue the jQuery core development with enthusiasm and vigor. Make > regular announcements in both groups of new releases. > > But with one addition. Take the time to also develop little > applications as demonstration models for people to try and see some of > the advantages. > > This will give you the testers you need, force you to actually test > and document some of the new additions you've made as you go and give > people ideas of how they can be used. Then when the time comes to make > the switch there will already be enthusiastic users and developers, > already knowledgeable and comfortable, to take advantage of it. > > The time to put version 2.5.x into the backstage upgrade path will > occur naturally, you will know with certainty when it is the right > time, you will have loyal followers and it may actually be demanded by > popular acclaim. > > That's how separate development paths can actually draw people > together instead of one that would divide them. > > Morris Gray > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 8:34 am, wolfgang <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sorry to everyone with a short attention span for this long post. One >> could also proceed to the last paragraph, to get the gist. >> >> > 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 >> >> I read parts of them and I'm very well aware that everyone has put >> serious consideration before implementing such a big change to the end >> of bettering TiddlyWiki. You shouldn't misunderstand my posts, that I >> wouldn't want this to happen. On the contrary, I'm still of the >> opinion you should go forward with this, and I appreciate you do. >> >> Also my arguments for a fork without jQuerry aren't anything you >> haven't heard already and therefore haven't considered before, nor >> could I give better ones as those already given by technically more >> versed contributors before. I just digested all these different >> perspectives (for >> example:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/TiddlyWikiDev/browse_thread/thread/c... >> ), multiplied it with the uncertainty factor in life, and salted it >> with Saq's perspective. And this is what came out of my pondering... >> >> I think everyone agrees with the direction of development taken, the >> advantages of doing so are far too obvious, theoretically. >> >> But considering the limited manpower at Osmosoft, these advantages to >> TW users might become obvious in a few months - or a few years - or, >> with other uncertainties already talked about, it might make this >> advantages more obvious to jQuery developers and less obvious to TW >> users - in the end. >> >> That's fine with me this way, and I take the possible risk of never >> seeing any real advantages. >> >> Then I thought - for the many reasons already pondered by others - >> well, after all it isn't such a big deal, to copy and paste bug fixes >> into version 2.4.3 and once more get developers on board for a healthy >> competition, for those who may feel there aren't any opportunities >> otherwise: >> >> >> >> > working at Osmosoft. I don't for a minute believe that there are any >> > sinister intentions behind this and it has been an unfortunate by- >> > product of the fact that Jeremy and Martin both work at Osmosoft.. >> > it's just easier to discuss and develop with those you're in the same >> > room with. Sadly it means the rest of us don't get an opportunity to >> > weigh in and contribute. This isn't really meant as criticism, the .. >> >> And once this uncertainty - that there might or might not come >> betterments to TW end users - has been decided, also the jQuery TW >> could only profit from it again (without having to take the >> responsibility to look also for such a kind of legacy TW, beside all >> the other perceived responsibilities: documentation, tiddly web, >> cctiddly, cecily, ripple rap, tiddly hub, jquery ...). >> >> From developers, who otherwise may hold back their involvements, >> because they are simply not sitting in the same room and may wrongly >> think their forks - if indeed bringing improvements - wouldn't be >> received well by the community. (if nothing else, these discussions >> show that there is a real demand for a simple stable TW without an >> incorporated jQuerry, which at this point is still lacking any >> perceivable advantage) >> >> >> >> > I'm not sure what you mean by the the "code repository for external >> > jQuery plugin developers". >> >> I mean if an end user needs a piece of functionality he can go to a >> systemServer, take a tiddler and tag it systemConfig without having to >> import anything else from this repository. >> >> If a jQuerry developer needs a piece of functionality he can come to >> any TiddlyWiki and use a piece of code - but without the end user >> having ever decided to distribute code he is ignorant of, nor would >> know how to use for his own advantage, but costing bandwidth. >> >> Sure, also before this was possible with essential functions of >> TiddlyWiki. But jQuery TW plugins are dependent on jQuery library. And >> jQuery library dependency wouldn't be necessary for still some time. >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> At the moment and till above will be decided - in months or years - >> jQuery library is the bloat. If I upgrade to it without receiving any >> perceivable advantages yet. >> >> >> >> > 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? >> >> Primarily it is the added size without any perceivable improvement. >> >> But I'm aware that this is difficult to understand as a big problem, >> if you haven't lived for a while in a developing country. However, you >> don't have too! You can't be responsible for everything - should other >> developers step up and do it on their own, and for very good reasons >> independently. >> >> Further, the difficulty of former attempts to create a micro kernel. >> Since this seems to have failed due to the interdependence in the core >> - why make it now dependent to anything more and that big as the >> jquery library? - Where to make - or should I say: leave - this ever >> lean might never become possible again. >> >> TW is to communicate, and does this very well and easy to use for >> newbies via the Internet. I'm aware many developers here would never >> use it for a website, but this disregard shouldn't lead to the >> sentiment - because it isn't reasonable for this purpose in their view >> - TW's size is the least issue to consider. >> >> > > 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. >> >> Now you're busy with modularizing - converting bits of TW code into >> jQuery plugins. Consequently done, how long do you reckon this will >> take? ...That long no real improvement might become perceivable I >> believe. Conservatively, I guess this will take years. >> >> (I'll change my opinion, for example, as soon the new jQuery way of >> making a saveChanges seriously cuts down the time it takes to save a >> big TW :-) >> >> > > .. 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. >> >> Better ask: For an user, does the TiddlyWiki today differ from the one >> yesterday? Again, there might or might not be any advantages to TW end >> users at any point in the future. But that long the question remains - >> why increase bandwidth? There are too many who don't have fast >> Internet. That doesn't concerns most of us here. But it nevertheless >> does make it an exclusive thing for the penniless, the majority on >> this planet. >> >> > > 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. >> >> It is one thing to realize that the TW kernel is too interwoven for >> any serious modularization for end users. It is the complete opposite >> approach then to proceed and create such a heavy dependency as to the >> 56 bytes weighting compressed jQuery library. >> >> >> >> > 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.) >> >> I would say TW without jQuerry was very stable and not less complete. >> So - in an ideal world - it should have been the other way around in >> my opinion. jQuerry library could have been added with a systemConfig >> tag by those who need it, for example for TreeviewPlugin. >> >> >> >> > > What does everyone think? >> >> But we are not living in an ideal world and the Osmosoft team is >> clearly overextended, it hasn't been able to set up anything better >> for end users documentation and communication than this mailing list >> since many years. Now to expect it would have the resources to leave >> the existing stable core independent, and optional to include >> additional jQuerry functionality - as long as this doesn't bring any >> serious advantages - is just too much to expect, I think. >> >> Therefore, though I appreciate your questioning Jeremy, I believe now >> it is the time for those developers, who may think they haven't got >> any opportunity to make contribution to the core. There is definitely >> a demand. >> >> >> >> > If people are interested, we could set up another conference call for >> > a discussion as well, >> >> Thanks for your efforts to create consent. But if there is passion for >> a slim, stable legacy TiddlyWiki - where jQuery remains optional - >> developer will step up and your team can concentrate on your task >> without becoming unnecessarily diverted. I agree with Saq, that if the >> core remains perceived the sole responsibility of Osmosoft, this very >> fast could lead to a dangerous situation.. There is no company too big >> to fail. >> >> Best wishes to everyone... > > > -- http://www.multiurl.com/g/64 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
