New name idea : ShadowWiki On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 8:29:28 PM UTC+1, Christopher Mann wrote: > > Hi, > > Now that I have finished "AsPlugin" (I think "Export as Plugin" would have > been a better name), I would like to set up some kind of "PlugOut" system. > > https://github.com/chris2fr/tiddlywiki-as-plugin > > PlugOut would be a repository, even on a local filesystem, that would act > as a library for Plugins. I could export the current wiki as a plugin and > load it into the PlugOut library. Thus all the other wikis could update > themselves from the PlugOut library. > > Pretty nifty, huh? > > Christopher > > P.S. If I wanted to have my plugin created dynamically in the current > wiki, I would have to have one tiddler change the contents of another > tiddler because plugin tiddlers are not calculated. C: > > > On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 10:12:02 AM UTC+1, Christopher Mann wrote: >> >> Hi again, >> >> Would you please be able to give me feedback on this approach? >> >> https://github.com/chris2fr/tiddlywiki-as-plugin >> >> It is about using the plugin mechanism to try to satisfy George Geek and >> perhaps Tobias Beer. It works as an export filter. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Christopher >> >> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 11:18:33 PM UTC+1, Tobias Beer wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> >>>> Currently, we are limited in leveraging this by a sophisticated >>>> plugin-mechanism that defies a simple "reuse tidbits" approach and forces >>>> a >>>> "publish a versioned bundle of codebits and supporting tids for >>>> distribution". >>>> >>>> I’d like to understand the issues you see with the current plugin >>>> mechanism. Are you envisaging a specific alternative? >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for asking. Not sure about the specifics, the tenets of >>> improvements might be: >>> >>> 1. easy bundling of tiddlers >>> - come to think of it, including plugins >>> 2. for reuse in a bundled manner >>> - meaning: as shadows (compare: inclusion on TiddlySpace) >>> >>> The plugin mechanism does cater for (some of?) that scenario, only the >>> means to use it for this purpose are possibly limited to selected >>> individuals who know the how to's. To me, the goal would be indeed to >>> simplify this "packaging" process and thus allow reusing tiddler packages >>> in different context, as if plugins (or then actual plugins), and possibly >>> even containing not only content but also structure, even functionality... >>> in short: whatever ...could be my master template packaging all kinds of >>> things, reused throughout my wikis. Could be a "my docs package". Could be >>> a "my todo setup" containing the basic scaffolding for my to do list >>> workflow... however, on a much more "simply create and use a basic package" >>> level rather than a "figure out how to package and manage plugins" level, >>> with versioning, naming conventions or whatever may be recommended for >>> tried and true plugins, rather than "simple bundles". >>> >>> There are currently two ways to “reuse tidbits”: a JSON file or a >>>> plugin. The JSON file is just about the simplest thing it could be: a nice >>>> simple plain text rendering of the source of a group of tiddlers, and is >>>> easy to work with in other tools. The plugin mechanism introduces just >>>> enough “sophistication” to satisfy their purpose: to be an *updatable* >>>> reusable tidbit. >>>> >>> >>> So, yes, the way how plugins work once they exist is great. Just the way >>> to create one is not as simple as it could be to allow for a more user >>> centric packaging of whatever tidbits into bundles. In fact, I'd even shy >>> away from using the name "plugin", as it comes with the connotation of >>> being a developed thing, coded of sorts. Psychologically alone, simply >>> packing up tiddlers into reusable bundles (being shadows in a target wiki) >>> would sound much simpler than being the author of a plugin and all the >>> presumed responsibility one might assume comes with such a position. It >>> would make packaging a common task and process rather than a by default >>> advanced, elevated one. >>> >>> >>>> Is it just that the support for building plugins in the browser is >>>> primitive? >>>> >>> >>> I guess so. By default, such a packer would create the most simplistic >>> package conceivable, in terms of setup and required data. (Right now I >>> don't even know the full requirements for plugins, tbh. (without >>> researching) ...and then perhaps an "advanced options" panel that can be >>> toggled so as to specify any other (plugin) parameters that may be needed / >>> used / specified, perhaps with a help / info bubble that explains what a >>> given metadata-field is for. >>> >>> Pragmatically speaking: possibly a streamlined Tinka that... >>> >>> - makes tiddler selection as easy as possible >>> - currently, selecting tiddlers is by individually ticking off >>> checkboxes next to titles matching a manually entered filter >>> - only asks to specify the most basic details required for >>> packaging, leaving out everything that truly is not >>> - in fact, could be just a title and nothing but >>> - avails the complete / advanced options in an expandable section >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> — tb >>> >>
-- 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/4f80c990-0b2a-412f-9116-7bdd3c51a2cf%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
