Hello all, pretty interesting thread indeed. I'm not sure to be the most capable person on this subject but this last message reminds me of my first time developing plugin.
> Plugins are the work of an "auteur" and we respect that. Perhaps too > much? Actually they are. Sometimes because of the "auteur" but in most cases in my humble opinion, because he's the only one that can fully understand what he did. Even when documenting the code, each author has a very own plugin structure. In my case, it has no consistency from one plugin to another. Just can imagine anybody looking at it would consider it's a mess... I wish I had some kind of instructions about plugin structure, good practices (and bad ones) when I made the first (and the others) ;-) I'm also aware that this is some very useful freedom for contributors. World is not black nor white... > I mostly avoid things that the visitor might mistake to be the plugin > when it is not. I think this is a good practice I do not apply now. But i definitely shall (and will) Speaking from macro, shouldn't they be "self-documented" ? For "classic" macro (i.e. non JavaScript) the documentation regarding usage parameters etc. could be directly included in the tiddler. Just as you have self documented functions in your favourite terminal function (`myfunction -help` you know)... Cheers, Sylvain @sycom Le jeudi 12 septembre 2019 13:55:45 UTC+2, @TiddlyTweeter a écrit : > > TonyM wrote: >> >> The social pressure placed on me with people like Mohammad and those of >> you beforehand publishing great content, is for me to publish more of my >> tools and utilities, has led me to build and automate a process to publish >> content. >> >> I am starting this thread to solicit suggestions for such standards for >> publishing. I often see github, demo and source wikis published for a >> plugin. What should these contain? >> > > ... > > One of the issues here is I have a lot of wiki macro solutions that do not >> need to be plugins, they can be installed without save and reload so they >> can be "dropped" on any wiki and used, for exploratory purposes. >> >> I can try and build me own solution but I would prefer to do so based on >> the wisdom and experience of the community so this post. >> > > I'm not sure my wisdom is orthodox :-). I'd say that JSON format is the > premier format for sharing work, regardless of whether its a plugin or > humble macro. > > The plugin mechanism is very good for fact of shadow tiddlers & > recuperation from change errors. The plugin format is also good for being > consolidated, in the sense you can remove it in one go. The addressing > contains it. > > As I have mentioned before I think there is a social-psychological aspect > to "plugins" that maybe sometimes inhibit breaking them down for reuse. > Plugins are the work of an "auteur" and we respect that. Perhaps too much? > > Best wishes > TT > -- 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/32bd08a8-b6fb-4a5b-8cbc-1b296a14d040%40googlegroups.com.
