Tony
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/8f082316-2de6-4838-b6fc-1907d61a2935%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
I came across this thread this evening. I like hearing that someone else besides me has grappled with this problem. You in using TiddlyServer, and I in developing it.This is exactly the problem that I predicted would happen, but I did not expect it would show up in real-world use, as I did not really think anyone would have 50 wikis! I should have known to trust my instincts :)The problem is caused in part by the way Tiddlywiki data folders are setup. Each folder must be in its own Tiddlywiki environment. So every wiki loads the same code files from disk and executes them. All in the same Node process, but still all separate objects.I could create a new type of connecter that would serve the folder directly to the client along with the required plugins and core. When a data folder would be opened it would serve a loader which would load the core and the specified plugins directly into the browser and then sync changes back to the server.In my mind this should be a fairly easy route to follow. The loader could be generated on the fly so the page loads fairly quickly and also so it works with the browser cache. I have wanted to implement this in many scenarios and it seems like it is becoming more realistic and necessary.Thoughts, anyone? Does it matter if plugins in a data folder get loaded directly to the browser? It shouldn't, I don't think. Especially with the current template for the server command in TiddlyServer, which is $:/core/save/all.That's my two cents.Arlen
On Feb 12, 2018 00:46, "Tristan Kohl" <kohlt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunetely not, nohup just stops them from receiving the HUP signal when I terminate a ssh session. Nothing in terms of overhead due to loading a new Node instance running full TW for every wiki.--
On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 1:54:37 PM UTC+1, TonyM wrote:Only a short response but on node instance with starting multiple wikis with nohup xxxx & does that reduce overheads?Tony
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.