On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Eric Shulman wrote:
While this is good for TiddlyWiki, especially those which are file:///
based, it is less good for server-side storage systems that store
individual tiddlers (rather than whole wikis).
I don't agree. The design that I have *already implemented* and which
is *widely used* in the community does NOT rely on any file-level
granularity. Just as with any other tiddler, each attachment tiddler
can be independently stored (e.g., TiddlyWeb), or stored as part of a
complete file-save action (e.g., TiddlySpot).
What I meant was not an attachment system that relies on file-level
granularity, but rather that using your style of storing "binary"
tiddlers is fundamentally better for TiddlyWiki's which store to
local disk (i.e are using in the browser at file:/// URIs) but
fundamentally complexifying for server-sides which store (and
provide in multiple serializations) tiddlers as single units.
There's more to respond to in the rest of the thread, but I'm hoping
other's will get involved before I say more. I just wanted to clear
up the above.
--
Chris Dent http://burningchrome.com/~cdent/
[...]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWikiDev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev?hl=en.
