CouchDB was already established when I started TiddlyWiki 5 in 2011, and I'd been following it with interest. Not only did it have solid synchronisation functionality, at the time it had intriguing features for hosting JavaScript applications, long before Node.js.
I think there were a few reasons that I didn't personally take CouchDB further in TiddlyWiki 5: * TiddlyWiki's internal store needs to offer a synchronous API, but CouchDB offers only async APIs. That means there would always be a requirement for a sync process between TWs synchronous DB and the CouchDB API, which means that TW still has to handle synchronisation * The difficulties of setting up and running a server of my own * The lack of CouchDB online services I was delighted to see Danielo's work with NoteSelf, and it deservedly attracted a lot of interest. It demonstrated that CouchDB can be retrofitted onto TW5 just like any other database with an async API. Best wishes Jeremy On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 3:01:05 PM UTC Mark S. wrote: > > That was it for me too. In the space of a month, it went from this > friendly, reasonably understandable thing, to this borg-like > mega-corporation thing. HAL* doesn't really cater to "little people" -- > that's not their mission statement. > > * Advance each letter one step > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 4:09:23 AM UTC-8 swilson...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> @Jan >> I was quite keen on noteself, had it set up and everything but then after >> the takeover, Couch DB moved past my tolerance for banging my head against >> software and it killed it for me. I suspect that was true for others. >> >> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 20:06:16 UTC cj.v...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> 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 tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/1a47ec64-5717-4d83-ae0d-334de04f2141n%40googlegroups.com.
