Hi BJ, thanks for both the update/release and the TiddlyTools link. I'll update the latter on classic.tiddlywiki.com; I can't predict how soon I'll try SaveTiddlers by itself, but the codebase is quite valuable since it covers FF *and* Chrome. Did I get the readme.md right that TW5 is saved in both Chrome and FireFox while for TWC only FF is supported?
Best regards, Yakov. вторник, 6 августа 2019 г., 13:09:47 UTC+3 пользователь BJ написал: > > I have made a new version of savetiddlers for classic tw to work with the > lastest firefox - I would appreciate it if you (or others) could try it. > > thanks > > bj > > https://github.com/buggyj/savetiddlers/releases/tag/0.9 > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:15:44 AM UTC+2, Yakov wrote: >> >> Hi BJ, >> >> when saving the function recreateOriginal() is used to create the new twc >>> image >>> >> >> yeah, yesterday I figured too that its the source of the problem. I use a >> plugin which overwrites loadOriginal to remove using recreateOriginal >> because TiddlyFox wrongly always reports successful saving and I have some >> TWs on an ejectable USB storage, so I need to be sure that if saving failed >> TW reports fail (TW may be still opened but the storage may be ejected). >> That's why I overlooked the issue. >> >> With chrome and now with firefox (since version 68) loading files from >>> 'file:/' is blocked due to security concerns >>> >> >> That's not quite true, setting security.fileuri.strict_origin_policy in >> FF still makes it possible to load files via xhr through file: schema (I >> haven't tested much, but launching Chrome with the >> --allow-file-access-from-files param should do so as well). >> >> It would be better to remove the message box from the new image. At >>> present savetiddlers will not work with a twc that already has a message >>> box div - I will work around this and produce a new release. >>> >> >> Could you provide some more details on why it doesn't work now? Because >> I'm considering even adding the message box to the core so that development >> of future savers that use the event-driven saving is easier. >> >> *Pengju Yan wrote* >>> >>> A really serious problem in savetiddlers is the mechanism of avoiding >>> saving the same file while a previous saving is not finished. Check the >>> dict "debouncing" in "contentscript.js". >>> >>> >> In several cases, the dict "debouncing" was not cleared as expected then >>> all my subsequent work was lost without my awareness (I enabled autosave >>> and savebackups). I've been suffering from this time by time. >>> >> >> Oh gosh, do you mean you had 2 subsequent saves with a little time gap >> between them? (could you describe your scenario so that I'm more aware of >> this potential problem? MainTiddlySaver hasn't debouncing implemented yet, >> but I never experienced this problem with content, only with options >> storage) If there's such problem, we should describe it in detail and refer >> to this in future development; I wasn't expecting anything like this in an >> extension saver (or may be the source of the problem is a bit different >> from what you describe?) We really need a reproducible scenario. >> >> Also, the dirty flags of successive savings should be managed in a stack >>> and cleaned in a proper way (delete certain dirty flags upon receiving >>> certain "save-successful" messages). >>> >> >> Yeah, I second this proposal (thinking about it for some time already), >> but this is a second level of IO improving which I'd address when a) I >> finish making TWC saving async and b) some documentation about >> IO/developing savers and editing (collaborating) workflow/infrastructure is >> established – because this is a more complicated idea and is less trivial >> to implement, especially when there's no docs describing it. >> >> Best regards, >> Yakov. >> >> вторник, 23 июля 2019 г., 4:43:17 UTC+3 пользователь Pengju Yan написал: >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 11:14:55 PM UTC+8, Pengju Yan wrote: >>>> >>>> Continue the title with "Or we need to modify TWC core substantially?" >>>> >>>> To enable asynchronous loading and saving, I think we need to modify >>>> TWC core so that only if a "save-successful" message is received then the >>>> dirty flag could be set to false. >>>> >>>> >>> Also, the dirty flags of successive savings should be managed in a stack >>> and cleaned in a proper way (delete certain dirty flags upon receiving >>> certain "save-successful" messages). >>> >>> -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/514de572-6502-48f6-9594-25ff4eada8cf%40googlegroups.com.
