> > what do you think?
I think you make a lot of sense (even if it's not really an answer to my question, of course). However, there is another important aspect with the officially provided configurations: there is a sense of uncertainty when making changes in shadow tiddlers that there are systemic consequences one cannot predict from merely looking at the immediate tiddler code, i.e that depends on where the tiddler is called from and used etc. "Official configurations" provide quality assurance. BUT, spontaneously, I'd guess many such official configurations could work as well as separate *plugins*. Or, more big picture, I think it would be better with a "standard edition", a "bare bones edition" etc and a wide range of "system plugins". (The config settings could even be a styled *plugin library* so "configuring" really means to download the plugin, at least the first time.) ...but as we know, this is a matter of administrative infrastructure and would, fully understandably, cause too much burden on Jeremy. As I conclude so often, I believe TWederation will solve this because one could download configurations from people one trusts and get the noted sense of quality assurance. [...] every change to a template is requested to be configurable. ... I > think we reached a point, where we have so many configuration options, that > it already hurts the project, due to its complexity. Every new parameter, > that can be configured, increases this complexity and imo also makes TW > slow. ... > Do we know there is a significant time impact from the configuration settings? From the 1292 shadow tiddlers you refer to, surely only a fraction are configuration options. And I would think most of them are about fetching a field value (right?). Is this really a significant time consumer? In a hangout you mentioned "lists in lists" which I think has a substantially (exponentially!) higher impact. > For me the problem is that users are afraid to change shadow tiddlers, > which *contradicts their existence*. > That is a very good point! Shadow tiddlers are constructed to permit overwriting! > So the proposal is: > ------------------------ > > - The TW update mechanism should detect this problem. > - It should tell the user, that s/he changed aaa, bbb, ccc, templates. > - It should be able to tell the differences. So the user can see and > decide, if the manual changes are still valid. > I agree this would be very useful! It could also alert when importing modified shadow tiddlers e.g as part of a plugin (...Or is one already alerted about this? Cant' remember.) ... I'm still curious about eventual possibilities to overwrite widget attributes remotely. Just like any other parameter, it doesn't always make sense to replace the whole tiddler. Thanks for input Mario. Your thoughts should probably be a discussion thread on it's own with it's own title for findability. <:-) -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/4f021891-6d74-4770-ab86-f558877fd9ac%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
