On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, tiddlygrp wrote:
Another one: I use tw for todo lists. When a job is done it gets
marked. Once every month i clean the list of done jobs. But what did
i do a year ago? just look up the history. And now my friend likes
the system. He just forks the tiddler to his own tw, keeping a
history reference to my tiddler. If i improve the system, he gets
(actually he queries my tw for an update) a notification, because his
tw is still tracking my tiddler because it keeps "federated server
history".
Hope that makes my thoughts more clear.
It does, somewhat, yes, but what I'm hearing is a need for more
robust revision handling for tiddlers, not a need for a tiddler
communication or federation protocol. I'm fairly certain that most
of the information you're after can be communicated (at least
initially) via an Atom feed between related servers.
Full featured history that survives renames and tracks forks
requires persistent (and thus meaningless) identifiers. This is
pretty much a fact, so can be taken as a given I suppose. It's
something that's always been in the back of my mind for implementing
with a TiddlyWeb store but I've always put off because it was a
layer of complexity that I wanted to put off until either I was
smarter or somebody else smarter would do it themselves.
But what then is the actual meaning, semantics or process of
"federation" and the associated use cases which require a tiddler
communication protocol (in excess of HTTP/Atom/stuff what already
exists)? That's what I'm really after.
--
Chris Dent http://burningchrome.com/
[...]
--
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.
