Hi Mark, Andreas Minor corrections:
> in a TW EVERY tiddler is ALWAYS loaded, meaning that while you can store a million tiddlers in a wiki, these million tiddlers are completely loaded into memory and parsed out from the html, when you open the wiki TiddlyWiki already supports externally stored tiddlers via the _canonical_uri field. They work for images, PDF files. > So in theory your approach of spreading out a wiki may be workable, but I feel that it don't plays well with the vision of having a single file with everything in it The vision of TiddlyWiki is not just to be able to work as a single HTML file, but also extends to exploding that file into individual files. That part of the vision is currently only realised in the Node.js configuration. > So while you are correct with your assumption that the static files would contain a fair bit of javascript complexity, it is in theory possible to make it a reality With Dave's idea, a bunch of separate HTML files could share a single JavaScript file via script tags. > Yes, a weakness of TW is that it doesn't scale well. The main issue that we see at the moment is that embedding large images/PDFs doesn't work well. There are users out there with TiddlyWiki documents containing up to the tens of thousands of tiddlers. Of course, there's the Node.js configuration which scales even better (and with some additional work will scale as well as anything else out there). Best wishes Jeremy On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:30 PM, 'Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki < [email protected]> wrote: > For personal use, there's nothing quite as flexible as TW. But it doesn't > scale up without problems. > > Something like Simiplenote makes it easy to quickly publish and update > information meant for consumption by others. A published (static) page > updates whenever the corresponding note in Simplenote is updated. > > If you have your own website, you could have your own MediaWiki. That will > scale-up and allow in-place editing to authorized individuals. > > What it comes down to is that, one way or the other, if you use TW for > managing your data, you will have to use a separate mechanism to publish > low-overhead data. So the question is, what publication process will > involve the least hassle for yourself? > > Mark > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 8:26:55 AM UTC-7, David Gifford wrote: >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> I am sharing them via my website on Dreamhost. >> >> I will have to look at Simplenote again to see what you mean. I remember >> it not being the tool I wanted when looking at it a while back. >> >>> >>> -- > 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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/deb0b1a7-3901-4619-809a-0b2b3b4eb5a3%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/deb0b1a7-3901-4619-809a-0b2b3b4eb5a3%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Jeremy Ruston mailto:[email protected] -- 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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/CAPKKYJa_E39Qya9p%3D0gxCNrnTMWGmor%2BqtRpeWGh8OJ4sLj84Q%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
