3 ms·

Thanks. Author mentioned TiddlyWiki as inspiration. But the whole point of TiddlyWiki was that it doesn't need a server right? So I'm trying to understand the

by andai 1y ago

Thanks. Author mentioned TiddlyWiki as inspiration. But the whole point of TiddlyWiki was that it doesn't need a server right? So I'm trying to understand the difference, the payoff. I understand that local web APIs are ass and you very quickly run into the need for a server. But I'm wondering about the utility of combining the two approaches. It seems like a contradiction in terms. Here's a server to help you with your dev setup oriented around not needing a server. I guess the main win would be cross device access? You have it online and you can edit it easily. I'm editing my stuff on my phone in a text editor. And syncing it to my laptop with a sync app.

paulirish 1y ago
Turns out, the original TiddlyWiki used a java jar to handle the file persistence. (I remember it being so magically automatic, but recently investigated how it was done)
- tonyg 1y ago
  I don't think that's right - IIRC it used to be possible to write out a file, if loaded from a file:// URL, directly from JavaScript. Then that ability got nobbled because security (justifiable) without properly thinking through a good alternative (not justifiable). I mourn the loss of the ability, TiddlyWiki was in a class of its own and there should have been many more systems inspired by its design. Alas. ETA: Wikipedia has reminded me the feature was called UniversalXPConnect, and it was a Firefox thing and wasn't cross-browser. It still sucks that it was removed without sensible replacement.
  - silicon5 1y ago
    I used TiddlyWiki a lot to manage my D&D 3.5 campaign back in the day. As I recall, it originally was a true stand-alone HTML document capable of overwriting itself, but once browsers dropped support for this capability, users had to begin using various workarounds, and this remains the status quo today. TiddlySaver.jar was one such workaround. A check in the Wayback Machine suggests that it was originally required only for Safari, Opera, and Chrome; IE and Firefox needed no such plugin. Nowadays, there are several workarounds, and setting up one is a mandatory installation step: standalone applications, browser extensions, servers, etc. Some are clunky (e.g. you have to keep your wiki in your Downloads directory or the browser can't write to it), and either way, TiddlyWiki is no longer truly a single stand-alone HTML file, at least not for writing purposes. It's still a very versatile tool, though.
hombre_fatal 1y ago
How would TiddlyWiki write to filesystem (save) without a server? I thought opening index.html in the browser was basically just a demo.
- notnmeyer 1y ago
  iirc browsers used to allow direct filesystem access.
  - mpyne 1y ago
    They never did, if anything it's the opposite in that I think there are now APIs that can make this possible. With TiddlyWiki you had to essentially File -> Save As and save the HTML back over itself. There were other ways too but they were all workarounds to the issue that browsers don't allow direct access.
    - davidhbolton 1y ago
      They did back around 2008. I used Wiki on a stick - see https://stickwiki.sourceforge.net/which https://stickwiki.sourceforge.net/which was kind of neat) but after a few years, Chrome etc stopped letting it save itself.
- bevr1337 1y ago
  TiddlyWiki can replicate itself. All users can freely edit any TiddlyWiki and save their changes to their filesystem. There's a few options for exports. It is a common gotcha that new users will lose some of their work while they learn persistence.
- elbear 1y ago
  Tiddlywiki has two modes of running. In one, you simply save the file as HTML and all your content is saved inside the file. The other mode is with a nodejs server (it's what I'm using). This allows me to access the wiki from all devices.
  - 1y ago
alwillis 1y ago
Thanks. Author mentioned TiddlyWiki as inspiration. But the whole point of TiddlyWiki was that it doesn't need a server right? I did a deep dive on TiddlyWiki recently. No, it doesn't need a server; an entire site can be self-contained in one HTML file. If you want to run it as a multiuser, web accessible wiki, it runs on top of NodeJS.

by andai 1y ago

paulirish 1y ago

Turns out, the original TiddlyWiki used a java jar to handle the file persistence. (I remember it being so magically automatic, but recently investigated how it was done)

tonyg 1y ago
I don't think that's right - IIRC it used to be possible to write out a file, if loaded from a file:// URL, directly from JavaScript. Then that ability got nobbled because security (justifiable) without properly thinking through a good alternative (not justifiable). I mourn the loss of the ability, TiddlyWiki was in a class of its own and there should have been many more systems inspired by its design. Alas. ETA: Wikipedia has reminded me the feature was called UniversalXPConnect, and it was a Firefox thing and wasn't cross-browser. It still sucks that it was removed without sensible replacement.
- silicon5 1y ago
  I used TiddlyWiki a lot to manage my D&D 3.5 campaign back in the day. As I recall, it originally was a true stand-alone HTML document capable of overwriting itself, but once browsers dropped support for this capability, users had to begin using various workarounds, and this remains the status quo today. TiddlySaver.jar was one such workaround. A check in the Wayback Machine suggests that it was originally required only for Safari, Opera, and Chrome; IE and Firefox needed no such plugin. Nowadays, there are several workarounds, and setting up one is a mandatory installation step: standalone applications, browser extensions, servers, etc. Some are clunky (e.g. you have to keep your wiki in your Downloads directory or the browser can't write to it), and either way, TiddlyWiki is no longer truly a single stand-alone HTML file, at least not for writing purposes. It's still a very versatile tool, though.

hombre_fatal 1y ago

How would TiddlyWiki write to filesystem (save) without a server? I thought opening index.html in the browser was basically just a demo.

notnmeyer 1y ago
iirc browsers used to allow direct filesystem access.
- mpyne 1y ago
  They never did, if anything it's the opposite in that I think there are now APIs that can make this possible. With TiddlyWiki you had to essentially File -> Save As and save the HTML back over itself. There were other ways too but they were all workarounds to the issue that browsers don't allow direct access.
  - davidhbolton 1y ago
    They did back around 2008. I used Wiki on a stick - see https://stickwiki.sourceforge.net/which https://stickwiki.sourceforge.net/which was kind of neat) but after a few years, Chrome etc stopped letting it save itself.
bevr1337 1y ago
TiddlyWiki can replicate itself. All users can freely edit any TiddlyWiki and save their changes to their filesystem. There's a few options for exports. It is a common gotcha that new users will lose some of their work while they learn persistence.
elbear 1y ago
Tiddlywiki has two modes of running. In one, you simply save the file as HTML and all your content is saved inside the file. The other mode is with a nodejs server (it's what I'm using). This allows me to access the wiki from all devices.
- 1y ago

alwillis 1y ago

Thanks. Author mentioned TiddlyWiki as inspiration. But the whole point of TiddlyWiki was that it doesn't need a server right? I did a deep dive on TiddlyWiki recently. No, it doesn't need a server; an entire site can be self-contained in one HTML file. If you want to run it as a multiuser, web accessible wiki, it runs on top of NodeJS.