> Why do you want to avoid having tiddlers in both tiddlers/ and plugins/? That is the way that TiddlyWiki5 is designed to work. What is it that you want to be able to do in the browser but can't with the repo layout I published?
Because I want to develop and test my customizations (plugins) mainly inside a browser TW5 instance. Changing anything there means that the sync adaptor needs to be clear about where to especially place new tiddlers. I even want to maintain and extend my customization plugins when I don't have access to a headless TW5 server for storage, so I want to be able to develop on a browser TW5 instance and then later easily updating my server TW5 instance that sits on my customization plugin repository. This only works in a simple way when I am maintaining a single tiddler repository tree. Your process may be fine when working with a lot of JavaScript code. But I'm mainly in customzing TW5 from within; no need for JavaScript macros and hacking most of the time. So why should I then move my customizing process to work with external tools? TW5 should be self-contained for many situations; and in fact it is. So your TW5 process basically enforces me to switch to a more involved development process as soon as I want to share my customizations in form of plugins. If that is the goal then I will refrain from sharing my work in the future. >> - Something that isn't clear to me: as the makeplugin command would >> change the plugin tiddler text, would the headless TW5 instance try to >> sync >> it back to disk? I would assume that it can't do this as long as I'm >> making >> sure I'm using a wiki edition without sync adaptor loaded. Correct? >> >> > That's right, syncing to disc only happens if the filesystemadaptor plugin > is loaded. > Good to hear. Another piece understood in the mosic of TW5. It feels like swimming against the current; I don't fully understand what's > wrong with the recommended approach? > Well, I prefer diving in these situations; alas, swimming with the current is fine, but there are situations where other directions may serve well as well. And who says that I'm swimming against the current, it may be I'm just following a separate current. Hopefully I've laid out a valid rationale for my differing plugin development process. So what's wrong about multiple development flows? Regards, TheDiveO -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" 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/tiddlywikidev. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
