I understand, Charlie, how you are only trying to solve the problem w/in scope of a single wiki -and if that were a truly closed system, then indeed your solution solves the problem, if i'm understanding it correctly.
However: i do see how easily tiddlers with the same ID could wind up in the same wiki in my case, where i've got a mitt-full of different editions that i am drag&dropping tiddlers across without due care, i suppose (mainly owing to that phenomenon Dave Gifford has described so well in his take on the "What is #TiddlyWiki" <https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/jIhG30rx1PU/m/153I2Xl7BQAJ> question. See: it's Silly-Putty, as i said :-). So, i have to ask: in case of UID conflict: is what would happen indeed as innocuous a condition as what you describe, i.e.: the two named-alike tiddlers would both display to the WWW browser who comes in on that link? No other problem you can forsee arising out of that? I do still think that the create date/time is sufficiently granular as to make the risk of similarly-coded tiddlers as near-zero as you could want, especially if combined with and/or hashed by some other factor. I gather that this doesn't work for those pesky "$:/" tiddlers -but that's fine, since we don't want it to (and there's no way such a thing could happen by accident, right?) /walt On Sunday, May 9, 2021 at 2:59:14 PM UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: > It will always be unique within one TiddlyWiki. Same as "Sequence > numbers" in an Oracle Database. > > The UID isn't really a counter. It gets the the largest value of UID that > exists among the tiddlers, then gives "this tiddler" the greatest value + 1. > > So not a counter in the sense of a stored value in some field. Maybe, for > performance, I'll have to set things up that way someday, but not for now. > > That said, this is only about unique and stable permalinks for Tiddlers in > a TiddlyWiki, not about unique identification of tiddlers. > > If you wanted to, you could create a bunch of tiddlers, and copy-paste the > UID's among a bunch of them so that a UID permalink actually opens a group > of related tiddlers, if that's something someone wanted. > > To reiterate: The UID's are not about unique identifiers for tiddlers. > That's a different problem, but one that I don't think needs solving. > Well, until it ever bites me in the caboose. It hasn't yet, but my caboose > is polished and ready for the bite at any time. > > That aside ... > > Say we both have TiddlyWiki's that use this UID thing I've developed. > > And say I import one of your tiddlers into my TiddlyWiki, and I now have > two tiddlers that have UID values of 55. One of mine, and the one I > imported from your TiddlyWiki. > > Who cares? > > Every URL link out in the wild that references my TiddlyWiki with UID 55 > will now open with my tiddler and your tiddler. > > However, my original intent for the UID permalink is not borked. We can > still easily get to my tiddler. > > If your tiddler (UID=55) gets to be a real pain, then I'll strip the UID > off of your tiddler that is in my TiddlyWiki. > > Anyway, all of that said, this UID-permalink thing does what it is > supposed to do in the problem scope I'm thinking, but is in no means meant > to solve the problem scope of unique identifiers for all the tiddlers in > the world. That is not a problem I am interested in at all. > > > On Sunday, May 9, 2021 at 10:43:06 AM UTC-3 PMario wrote: > >> Hi, >> TLDR; I think a "counter" used as UID will fail in the short run! >> >> I did my post my concerns at github. >> https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/discussions/5668#discussioncomment-715278 >> >> -mario >> > -- 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/0d61171f-bc41-4b55-92ac-38fa484708d2n%40googlegroups.com.
