I think that breaking the core into separately managed components would be a disaster for plugin writers - there has to be only one version that you work to override. I do think that the template tree is a bit too ridged - although there is are configuating options there are not really any 'hooks' to include alternative templates while leaving the current templates in place. Also macros could be used instead of widgets in the templates, maybe the widget tree (is?) could be more hackable. Also there is no way to set global defaults for widgets. (the defaults are defined in the widgets).
cheers BJ On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 3:15:05 PM UTC+1, Jeremy Ruston wrote: > > Hi Tobias > > > that could eventually lead to rigorously separating core and ui > > The core JS code and the UI are already rigorously separated into > different types of tiddler. There's plenty of modularity at that level. > > > As for mismatching versions, there could always be a dependency of a > given ui version to a given core version. Not? > > No. I was responding to the suggestion that users should be able to run > different versions of the UI against the core. > > > albeit a worthy endeavor that anyone who wishes to explore alternative > ui's for TiddlyWiki can pick up > > It's a *terrible* endeavour for anyone who wants to explore alternative > UIs. It's not an obstacle to exploring alternative UIs, and so it's just a > plumbing task that would prevent them from actually developing the > alternative UI. > > Best wishes > > Jeremy. > > > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 1:32 PM, 'Andreas Hahn' via TiddlyWiki < > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Am 19.09.2015 um 13:59 schrieb Jeremy Ruston: >> >>> Otherwise, yes, such a split could be done. If you search the >>> core/modules directory for the string $:/ you'll see the dependencies >>> between the core JS code and actual tiddler and tag names; there's not >>> actually that many. >>> >>> But again, I'd ask for the motivation. If it's about reducing file size, >>> then I think there are other options that have less impact on the >>> complexity of the project. If it's about being able to ignore the core UI >>> then I'd respond that that is already possible. >>> >>> Just to be clear, my stand on this is that I'll help anyone who wants to >>> experiment, but I don't see how I can justify working on this (which is >>> quite demanding) for dubious benefit when we've got major issues like poor >>> multi-user behaviour to work on. >>> >> >> I was in no way implying that you should work on this, but I was >> interested in how one would go about completely changing the UI (think >> applications on top of the TW core) and which and how many ties would have >> to be kept intact for TW to continue to work. So you answered both of >> those, thanks for taking the time =). >> >> /Andreas >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> 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/55FD55F0.8070407%40googlemail.com >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > Jeremy Ruston > mailto:[email protected] <javascript:> > -- 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/9c4a7a66-54e0-48ed-bbd7-3556259528ca%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
