@TonyM the only tangible change I've mentioned is a pull request to add the ability to rename tiddlers during import. Considering how strongly backwards compatibility with established ways of doing things is considered for all core changes, I don't see any reason for your panic.
The entire import process from a code perspective is not written a way that plays well with server backends, as it is entirely synchronous. This can be improved without negatively impacting single file wikis. I think you will agree that it is a challenge to circumvent that with wiki text. I never mentioned plugins but I will say that if it wasn't for people willing to write custom JavaScript (and plugins), we wouldn't have a lot of the features we take for granted today in TiddlyWiki, like for instance tags. The blind negativity towards JavaScript and plugins stifles creativity and innovation. On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 2:30:55 PM UTC+2, TonyM wrote: > > Saq, > > What do you want to change about the import process? I have discovered its > highly flexible and intended to release quite a few tools relating to this, > I would be concerned if the possibilities were lost. I suspect it may not > have being by design, but there are a great many possibilities already with > the import process, I use many already manually, but have not published > tools yet. > > One way we can quickly see if a plugin is needed or not, we can look at > the current way tiddlywiki does it, and if it is not using a plugin, it > usually can be redesigned without needing a plugin, more specifically > avoiding the need for javaScript functions. If we do go the > plugin/javascript route I would hope it does not reduce capabilities. > > Please let me know what you would have be improved from an import > functionality perspective, and I will see if I can address it, or even > identify if its already possible at the same time as helping David. > > There is already a method to set and check tiddlers during import, I > already send such imports a different ways including to JSON, data > tiddlers, plugins and more. It is highly extencible. > > Keep an eye on this thread. > > Thanks > Tony > > On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 10:15:17 PM UTC+10, Saq Imtiaz wrote: >> >> I have working, tested code sitting around to make a pull request to add >> renaming to the import process. If Tony or someone else doesn't get around >> to it before I do that, I can take a look at this as well. It's a pragmatic >> request. I would want to be able to easily toggle shadow tiddlers as well. >> >> (On a different note I really want to revamp that entire Import UI..... >> well, not just the UI but the entire import process). >> >> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 1:30:09 PM UTC+2, David Gifford wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> This is something that has bothered me for years. I am just going to say >>> it now that we have a lot of newcomers that would benefit from this tiny >>> improvement. >>> >>> I think the import tiddler should have two more checkboxes: >>> Check/uncheck system tiddlers, and check/uncheck regular tiddlers. >>> >>> I say this because I suspect most users, when importing, are in one of >>> two scenarios: >>> >>> 1. They want to move their notes (regular tiddlers) to a new TiddlyWiki >>> setup, say, from Stroll to Drift, or vice versa, or from their old >>> TiddlyWiki to TiddlyRoam, or whatever. >>> 2. They have perfected their setup ($:/ prefixed tiddlers) in a >>> TiddlyWiki file they started that has lots of notes, and they want to >>> create a new template from the shadow tiddlers without importing their >>> notes. >>> >>> Either way, the simplest procedure SHOULD be, >>> >>> a) download an empty.html from tiddlywiki.com or Stroll, etc >>> b) Import tiddlers from old file, with the ability to choose quickly to >>> import only regular tiddlers or only $:/ prefixed tiddlers. >>> >>> But to do b, one must presently check or uncheck what could be dozens or >>> even hundreds of tiddlers. >>> >>> Maybe there are other ways to do this in TiddlyWiki. If so, they are >>> well-hidden and probably multistep and/or counterintuitive. It seems like >>> this ought to be available at the import tiddler, to save people time. And >>> it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to use checkboxes to distinguish >>> and filter out tiddlers that start or don't start with $:/ >>> >>> I think this should be core, but as the title states, I'd be willing to >>> settle for a plugin. What do you guys think? Is this as desirable as I >>> think it is? Or does it create more problems than it solves? Interested in >>> hearing feedback. Blessings. >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/02f0f89f-c71e-4773-8fa3-66c8f87f2ddf%40googlegroups.com.
