That would be very cool. *Comments*
Other than technical coolness, what would be the advantage of it? From just a user perspective (i.e. forget technical stuff) what reason would I have to want that? You're talking technological "wowness", but bring it back to "in the trenches" "daily usage" terms for a typical user: why should he/she care? To investigate how people use TiddlyWiki, what choices they make, and why, you will get more responses over at TiddlyTalk. It has become the fan-favourite. Me, I much prefer Google Groups, so I am very happy to reply here: *My use cases* *Personal TiddlyWiki* I store all of my personal TiddlyWiki instances on Google Drive. TiddlyWiki aside, if I have no access to the internet, any computer is useless to me. However, since I have offline access to my files on Google Drive, my Chromebook isn't quite the brick folk would think it is ... Most important to me is to have access to all of my things in Google Drive from any connected device anywhere. Having my TiddlyWiki instances tied to databases of a web browser on some machine? Nope, not for me. Unless whatever you come up with has auto-syn with the cloud, I won't be using it. A big draw to single-file TiddlyWiki: 10 years from now, however long a TiddlyWiki has gathered dust, I can open it and everything will be right thre. *Multi-User TiddlyWik* In this case, TiddlyWiki instances I've setup in virtual machines using cloud services. So that I can take advantage of all the goodness that is nodejs TiddlyWiki. All of them tiddlers sitting in individual text files, right where I want them. Although what you describe would be, I think, of no interest to me here, the ability to have these TiddlyWiki instances able to access databases on these servers, so that the TiddlyWiki instances could have access to data coming from other systems? That would get my attention. On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 6:26:58 AM UTC-4 V wrote: > Hi. > > I have been following the TW project for years and I am still very > surprised that the community continues to actively support super strange, > inconvenient and limited ways of saving and synchronizing – but at the same > time all developments using normal technologies on which synchronization > could be easy, seamless and safe, such as CouchDB, are not supported in > official release and abandoned by community. > > Especially considering the new data storage format in JSON, with which > synchronization with object databases has never been easier. It's even > easier than maintaining the current server solution on files, which in > principle cannot work offline, unlike a solution based on > IndexedDB+PouchDB→CouchDB or IndexedDB→Mongo/Posrgres. > > I have used PouchDB adapter from NoteSelf, but it's outdated and contains > a lot of bugs. Other solutions were outdated even earlier. > > If IndexedDB/CouchDB solution were supported out of the box, there would > be no reason at all to use paid solutions like Evernote or Notion for > personal notes. > > Based on discussions & repo, it seems that no movement in this direction > is planned. > > I have only one question – why? > Is it really more convenient for everyone to save files in Dropbox using > crutches, constantly losing changes between devices and merging conflicts? > > Are these some kind of ideological reasons? > > > -- 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/df229928-af14-437b-8c37-028cc783bb31n%40googlegroups.com.
