Hi I'm just a user enjoying the fact that TiddlyWiki exists and I'm using it for all kinds of tasks personally (for work and for personal recreation :-))- lately I have become a little discouraged by the fact that most(almost all) of the people I communicate with, use IE - They don't see TiddlyWikis potential as many of the great plugins and styletweaks I use, don't work in IE..
I thought of the JQuery implementation as an open invitation to get started with developing jQueryPlugins also for TiddlyWiki. Plugins, which would "benefit from the much higher quality browser compatibility layer in jQuery ". The vision, I thought, was to overcome most of the browser incompability issues, which are really annoying - and the thing that prevent a lot of people (all those who have to use IE), worldwide, to see how usefull TiddlyWiki really is - for all kinds of tasks... When you have used many, many hours to collect plugins and setup a TW for specific tasks - and you can't expect people, who use IE - to be able to use it - and (of all names) call it promising but really just "Beta-software" - showing perspectictive - but too buggy to use.. - You get pretty dispirited... I'm not in a situation where I can be uncompromising - and crave that the people I work with should use Firefox or Google Chrome. Pcs at my work suffer under the strict policy that firefox is to insecure and IE is the stable and secure browser. All banking and economical tasks at my work, need IE to work :-( I expected that TWs corecode would get smaller with jQuery and that bigger TWs with more data would get faster in the process... I saw these things as an inevitable and neccesary process for a successfull OpenSourceProject working inside out.... >From Wolfgangs perspective I get the impression that the jQuery implementation is a parallel development, that doesn't provide any progress or refinement of the core itself... It provides new possibilities, just as any plugin adds new functionalties to the core. If this is true, I will second Wolfgang in the opinion, that jQuery should be separated from TiddlyWikis core and be an optional plugin to accompany jQuery dependent plugins to work... - and his point about 2.5.2 to be a fork - in it's own right - but still a fork.... considering the contributors of plugins, not using jQuery at all.. On the other hand I don't see any reason why Wolfgang, Saq, BidiX, Eric Shulmann, Elnoi or ..... should make new forks based on earlier TW-core without the inclusion of jQuery, if it should result in maintaining individual parallel upgrading repositories (as in the case with Mptw?!) I think it's great that different people with different skills can contribute with specialized plugins without having to maintain the core themselves - and that a single TW can be a repository of plugins and css by itself.... It's pretty awesome when you think about it.... Still it takes a lot of time to discover where to find them - and I think that the TiddlyHub idea (http://groups.google.com/group/ TiddlyWiki/browse_thread/thread/9c5d6acb27ee957b/5d26bdeab5aead1d? lnk=gst&q=repository#5d26bdeab5aead1d) would speed things up as well as paying respect to developers outside of Osmosoft. I like that you can make your own TiddlyWiki adaption - but I don't believe for a second that my feeling of ownership in the process of combining and tweaking - was possible without some degree of work, involvement and exposure (isn't that what communication and internet is all about?)- I think that all people: developers, csswizards and people who can do magic with code, needs exposure (and some fame) for their original work - to feel responsible and wanting to continue their work with TiddlyWiki ... - I know I'm on the edge of suggesting setting up a FaceBookGroup for TiddlyWiki - I don't - TiddlyHub is a step towards better exposure of contributors and will make it easier for less involved or new users, - who need quick solutions and an overview of possibilities... I'm not sure if some of the things I say are selfcontradictionary - or even remotely related - Hope it makes some sense anyway.. YS Måns Mårtensson On Jul 8, 6:34 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... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
