Ticket #1150 (closed enhancement: invalid)

Opened 2 years ago

Last modified 2 years ago

[TiddlyWeb] devise a strategy for packaging verticals

Reported by: FND Owned by: mahemoff
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: tiddlyweb Version:
Severity: low Keywords: verticals
Cc:

Description

It is currently not well-defined what constitutes a TiddlyWeb vertical or how these should be packaged and deployed/installed.

After several discussions, the following preliminary conclusions have transpired:

Verticals contain a variety of components:

* instance configuration * server-side plugins (some of which might be or rely on global site-packages) * default store content (i.e. tiddlers, including client-side plugins) * default store configuration (recipes/bags/users, policies) * static content (e.g. images)

TiddlyWebWiki??'s notion of instances is one possible solution. However, its model is currently not easy to imitate, in part due to lack of abstraction (e.g. instancer and instance_tiddlers are built into the tiddlwebwiki package and not easy to reuse).

An alternative approach might be to package a "standard" instance as a tarball and import its content and configuration into another instance.

Change History

Changed 2 years ago by SaqImtiaz

Originally posted by mahemoff:

"Just to add a few desirable features of the scheme (from conversations with ourselves and also Jeremy Ruston):

- simple solution for developers to set up a new project - simple, fast, develop-test-debug cycle - easy model for deployment to a server, with a process for possible changes to config - there should be a standard process for a developer to build a distribution with all components in it - including components from outside the project's source and also including core tiddlyweb components. For intranet environments, can't assume internet connectivity and often need entire "bill of materials" to be inspected as is.

(FND suggested I reassign this ticket to cdent so he sees it. I realise some of this is possibly beyond scope of core tiddlyweb, but wanted to get it all down.)"

Changed 2 years ago by SaqImtiaz

Originally posted by FND:

"I would prefer to see this ticket broken down into several smaller tickets that together make up the several feature requests."

Changed 2 years ago by cdent

  • status changed from new to closed
  • resolution set to invalid

lack of response indicates lack of interest, will wait for it to come back round again

Changed 2 years ago by FND

  • type changed from defect to enhancement
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.