Jed, Perhaps calling it multi-access tiddlywiki would address both multi-session and multi-user. I have not yet driven a multi-user version out to multiple users at once but I do believe this is a major advance of your solution and something TiddlyWiki is crying out for. It will take time for people to host it perhaps on "server" devices, within docker or on some internet platforms (I plan to make my mac-mini or synology disk-station host it) but I expect in time a lot of people will be looking for multi-user tiddlywiki as well. Historically many have asked for such features. The key use you point out, multi-session (browsers) is also revolutionary but also the fastest to use "use case".
I am still trying to get the multi-wiki through your solution working smoothly, develop a work flow for it, then I plan to migrate more than half a dozen wikis into it. Multi-access, even if is is a tag line you use should encourage both multi-session and multi-user curious people to it. On dividing it into plugins, perhaps you should plan to separate out the websockets in the long run as it seems to be offering an infrastructure solution for other developer solutions like messaging and inter-wiki communications. This does not mean you need to maintain or publish the websockets component separately from your solution, only keep it up your sleeve for other developers or yourself to reuse. In effect I am suggesting there is value in providing a web-sockets solution separately but no need to divide your multi-access solution into components, perhaps only in the distant future when multiple solutions depend on websockets. Thanks for this work and the single file install, they are revolutionary, and revolutions take time to play out. Regards Tony On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 9:17:06 AM UTC+10, Jed Carty wrote: > > I am probably going to go with a name that isn't descriptive to just avoid > the problem. I am leaning toward TiddlyFoule because it is seems like it > could be descriptive without actually telling you anything about what it > does. > > And the question about splitting it up is probably most meaningful in > terms of if there is some reason to not have all the functionality > available. Like Hans said, there is no reason to use all of it if you don't > need it. Would it be better to just have the conversion between single file > and html wikis and not immediately save your changes for some reason? > -- 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 tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. 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/d65d61c8-57fb-4b7c-b3b5-4e85154200ff%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
