I certainly sympathize with Chris's disappointment in the ability of server-based TW solutions to gain developer support. But then, I am not a Python believer, and if I were to invest a serious amount of effort in the problem, I would most definitely go the Node.js path. As it is, I am more likely to just pick the fruits of whatever is useful from tweb in the context of giewiki (like server-side wikifiers).
But I must take some time to look into what Jeremy is doing with TW5. /Poul Den tirsdag den 16. oktober 2012 15.19.06 UTC+2 skrev Chris Dent: > > On Oct 16, 1:49 am, "Mark S." <throa...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > No one provided a realistic solution other than to suggest a web server. > > The web servers suggested were large. After that I kind of lost interest > in > > TW. > > This seems an opportune moment to remind folk that using TiddlyWeb + > TiddlyWiki doesn't have to be either hard or large, it's just gained > that reputation somehow. This response isn't a reaction to TWS: that > sounds awesome and very convenient. > > TiddlyWeb has been built in a way to allow people to build tools that > could make it extremely easy to use. That is rather than being > initially easy to use it is designed so that interested parties can > make versions of it that are extremely easy to use in different use > cases. Unfortunately there haven't been many of these other versions. > This could mean several different things: > > * My assertion about the tools that TiddlyWeb provides is not true. > * There aren't any interested parties. > * There are interested parties and there a people who can do the > building, and these people are disjunct. > > Each of these statements have persisted in the TiddlyWiki universe > since early on. The noun "TiddlyWeb" can be replaced with a variety of > names for plugins, verticals, server-sides. I'm not sure what this > means or why it is. Any ideas? > > In any case, on a computer that has a healthy Python installation > (many Linux machines and many Macs) the following small number of > steps creates an operational tiddlywebwiki installation on which you > can run as many tiddlywikis as you like: > > virtualenv --no-site-packages tweb > cd tweb > source bin/activate > pip install -U tiddlywebwiki > twinstance tweb > cd tweb > twanager server > open http://0.0.0.0:8080/recipes/default/tiddlers.wiki[1] > > I recognize that for many people that is complete gibberish and having > a "healthy Python installation" is a non-starter, so my point is not > that people should have to do that, but rather that _someone_ could > make a thing that encapsulates the complexity for a particular > environment (such as Windows) and by so doing make a very positive > contribution to getting tiddlers into people's hands. > > If TiddlyWiki is a useful to you (the general you) because of its > standalone-and-save-itself nature, then tools like TiddlyWeb, > ccTiddly, giewiki probably don't matter; but, if what you care about > is tiddlers then each of those tools (especially TiddlyWeb if I may be > so bold) provide huge scope[3] for doing interesting things. Each of > those projects is open source, meaning they rely on community to make > them their best, yet (as far as I can discern) each has only ever had > a very small number of contributions from outside their core > developer. > > Why is that?[2] > > [1] It can actually be shorter than that. That list is for running the > service in a virtualenv, wherein you don't need to root access to > install packages, and the packages don't clobber other installations. > If you are root you can: > > sudo pip install -U tiddlywebwiki > twinstance tweb > cd tweb > twanager server > open http://0.0.0.0:8080/recipes/default/tiddlers.wiki[1] > > [2] The TiddlyWiki community has always had a unique approach to Open > Source. Community members build around the core product, not in or on > it. This has resulted in a very diverse and exciting plugin ecosystem > but not much in the way of collaboration on shared goals. And things > look quite alien to people who are used to open source collaboration > in its common forms. > > [3] Of course that scope comes with the cost of initial complexity but > like with most computer oriented things complexity can be ameliorated > with work: abstraction and encapsulation to the rescue. What can be > done to get more people involved in that work? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/-/K9Iw-gp9KI0J. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
