Hello Jeremy, > > First of all, I am acutely aware that it sounds like I'm telling you what > to do, and I can understand how frustrating that might be. Of course, > you're free to do things however you want, and there's nothing wrong with > anything that works for you. >
I'm sorry about our last misunderstanding and I hope we have leaved that away. You don't need to excuse yourself before being sincere, don't be scared of my reaction. If I write here is because I want opinions and points. There is nothing wrong to tell someone what to do when he is not in the right direction. I really appreciate your advises they are really useful and used to point me in the right direction. > My comments are relevant because we're part of a community, and we're both > trying to build things that are useful for the broader community. The > community benefits most if the available components and plugins of > TiddlyWiki work together coherently and reliably. Furthermore, you benefit > if you can reuse the existing code because it gives you a head start. > I totally agree with every single word of that paragraph. > What you've described is precisely what the syncer module and sync adaptor > do. Not similar: exactly the same. Its the same use case, and is > interacting with the TiddlyWiki core in the same way. > > I agree. I have been examining the syncer module and it is 90% what I need, but with some limitations. Also I have a couple of questions about how it works, but I will ask them later. > I agree the issues you list are all potential limitations of the current > syncer implementation. But I'm trying to argue in favour of extending the > syncer architecture to cover the use cases you're interested in, rather > than making an incompatible fork of the existing architecture and then > still having to implement the additional features that you want. > Maybe I can create a startup module that starts a modified version of the syncer module. I though about extending (aka overriding some functions and constants) of the syncer module from my plugin, but then It will make my plugin incompatible with any sync adaptor. This is not a problem with the current idea of sync adaptor, where only one is used, but I was thinking in something different. I don't want my plugin to change the default behavior of how wiki is saved, I just want to sync to the server certain tiddlers. > > As a TW plugin developer, please don't think of the core as something > that's frozen and complete; a goal I've mentioned before is to keep > refactoring the core as needed to allow plugins to extend and change it. > Those kinds of changes can only be made collectively, with the core > developers working with plugin developers. I'm sure that over the months > you've seen this happen repeatedly: a developer wants to do something > outside the scope of the current core implementation, and we extend the > core to get the developer moving again. It's a cycle that works well, and > gives us continuous improvements and a rich ecosystem of components. > > Yes, I saw it happening many times. That is what makes TW feel like a live project. I really trust in the ability of the core to adapt its functionalities to what developers demands, is just that I don't feel like I deserve such attention. -- 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.
