Mark S. wrote: > > TW wasn't meant to be a robust, multi-user wiki [...] Chasing after > TW-based solutions is a rabbit hole that we don't have to go down just > because the idea is neat. We already know that TW has problems scaling, so > if the idea is to provide a massive index to TW solutions, wouldn't it be > better to use a tool made for the job? >
Well, I was referring to what the end user interfaces with. The underlying backend can be whatever-it-takes. We saw one system in TiddlySpace but it could be any backend DB + distribution system but with an interfacing TW layer for the end user. TW is just a web page. Particularly if we're talking about distributing loose, i.e individual, tiddlers. Or am I fundamentally misunderstanding something? Consider that all the code for TW is kept on GitHub. Hey! Wouldn't it be > neat to store it all inside a TW file! Just add version control, multi-user > configuration, and you're done! Who needs GH! > Irony? But since you use this example; My point is that GH could be the underlying db, even hosting discussion posts, including an interfacing TW for the end user. No small coding project ;-) > By sanctioned, it's like you said -- Jeremy has to approve it and provide > direction to it prominently at TiddlyWiki.com. > Ah, yes. <:-) -- 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/66e10e4d-c006-4f16-9e79-f4628b965562%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
