Hi Danielo I'm being dumb -- to use a random hash as an ID for a tiddler would be a waste of resources. Rather -- each tiddler should be given a hex string as an ID, where the hex string determines that tidders position in a Table of Contents (TOC).
The existing TOC mechanism is cumbersome to use -- useable in a static situation, but useless for generating a dynamic TOC. What would be really nice is a TOC that functions alike Workflowy <https://workflowy.com/> -- where each entry is the title (clickable link) of the respective tiddler. This could be implemented if each tiddler were allocated a hex string as an ID which marked it's position in the TOC -- 16 branches at each level (I suppose two hex characters might be used for the first level -- allowing 256 branches at the root level.) Once this mechanism had been implemented (adding a suitable hex string field to each tiddler) -- creating a TOC tiddler (in the sidebar) to display the hierarchy should not be too difficult. With a little more effort, a drag and drop editor could be written to ease the creation and repositioning of tiddlers within the tree -- and TW could mimic the behaviour of Workflowy! regards On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 4:30:48 AM UTC+2, Matabele wrote: > > Hi Danielo > > It would be advantageous to give each instance of TW a unique ID -- in > this way, two different tiddlers in two TW's with the same title can be > distinguished from one another -- in particular, this may involve two > different revisions of the same source tiddler. > > I believe it would also be advantageous to give each tiddler a unique ID > via a plugin (could be a hash of the TW ID and the title of the tiddler) > but this would be redundant if the idea above were adopted (as titles > within each TW must be unique in any case.) > > regards > > On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 10:59:21 AM UTC+2, Danielo Rodríguez wrote: >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> I know that the topic of titles as tiddlers ID have been discussed >> several times for TW itself. But what about external stores? This is >> directly related to sync adaptors and external databases as store for the >> tiddlers. >> Normally in databases there is a primary key, that is unique and >> incremental, and then the user data/fields. This have several advantages >> like traceability of a single element among all their changes. Sticking to >> the name as an unique identifier we will lose track of tiddler in every >> database system once you rename it. This is because how TW handles >> tiddlers: every change on a tiddler means deleting the old version and >> substitute it with a totally new one. This is against any DB system I know, >> and recently I have faced several problems (like loosing related >> attachments) because of that. >> >> That's why I'm asking community for the best approach. Should we stick to >> titles as IDs when we sync to a remote database? Or should be treat the >> tiddler just as a collection of fields that we store in a particular entry >> of our DB? Of course the syncadaptor should handle the conversion however >> it's needed. >> >> Thanks for your point of view. >> > -- 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/9f58010a-1f9a-439d-9d4e-abf7cd205ac2%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
