On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:51:07 AM UTC+2, William wrote: > > Thank you for the explanation. I am not asking about what the _rev is used > for in CouchDB. I am asking about how the TW5 app (syncer and the app in > general) handles the revision field, especially: >
Are you talking about the mechanisms used in syncer.js and may be tiddlywebadaptor.js? The revision handling there is in line with the TiddlyWeb backend behaviour but TW5 doesn't know about revisions yet. TiddlyWeb keeps permanent revisions of every tiddler. > * why the updated revision returned from saveTiddler is not stored in the > tiddler itself > That's probably a bug. But at the moment, it doesn't matter. Since there are no conventions defined, how to deal with "backend fields" in a tiddler. IMO what we have here is a _naming conflict_. So I think, what is needed, is a general discussion, how to handle fields, that are needed to deal with a specific backend. > * why a new draft tiddler's revision is set to the original tiddler's > revision instead of null > That's probably a bug. But in the tiddlyweb context the revision sent from the client is always ignored by the server. The server creates a new revision, when it saves something. Conflict detection is done with the tiddlers etag. ----------------- The only field every tiddler must have is: title Common fields are: - modified, modifier, created, creator, tags, text Application specific fields can be seen at: tiddlywiki.com: It has a lot of them: http://tiddlywiki.com/#%24%3A%2Fcore%2Fui%2FControlPanel%2FTiddlerFields Empty TW: tiddlywiki.com/empty.html has: http://tiddlywiki.com/empty.html#%24%3A%2Fcore%2Fui%2FControlPanel%2FTiddlerFields So what we need is some type of namespace, that separates backend fields from "common" and "application" fields. With TiddlySpace a prefix "server." eg: server.bag, server.content-type, .etag, .permission, .recipe. ...... was introduced, but these prefixed fields are explicitly removed by the TW5 import mechanism. see issue #238 There are some open issues eg: - https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/689 - https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/238 So imo we need to deal with these issues and the namespace discussion first. Otherwise different backends will create a big field naming mess. @Jeremy, What do you think? just my 2 cents Mario -- 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.
