Idea: Etherpad integration

[Michael Wiktowy]

Looking at the beta.etherpad.org site, it would be pretty cool if Tiddlywiki could be loosely integrated with Etherpad software as an optional backend for handling simultaneous tiddler editing.

If the editing of a tiddler could be optionally switched from editing "Draft of Tiddler Name" to "https://custom_etherpad_site.org/p/Tiddler_Name" and the result returned as a export option in etherpad, that would take care of a lot of issues. I'm not sure if etherpad has a clear API for doing all of this.

I see it has been discussed in the past but I think in the context of TWC. Just a thought to throw out there as the new "tiddler in an independent window" stuff coming down the pike might lend itself easily to something like that.

/Mike

[Leo Staley]

Man, I love Etherpad. It's my go-to collaborative tool. It's basically the closest thing to Google Wave out there, and Google Wave was basically perfect for collaboration. 

I'd almost say that All of the weaknesses of Etherpad, for me, are resolved by tiddlywiki, and Tiddlywiki's biggest weakness, multi-user support, is Etherpad's specialty.

I would love to see integration between them. 

[Måns]

Hi Mike and Leo

It is actually quite easy to integrate an etherpad into a tiddler via an iframe.

If you want an etherpad to be created automatically from a tiddler's title or any title you put into a macro, here are a couple of possibilities:

#Etherpad_basic_integration

 

@Tobias' plugin for TWC has some nice extra features like: ViewTemplate integration, creating a new etherpad with a timestamp + tiddler title and it could be revealed opened/closed with a toolbar button.

These extra features are all available as standard features of TW5's core - if you want to add them.

Cheers Måns Mårtensson  

[PMario]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 9:45:54 PM UTC+2, Michael Wiktowy wrote:

Looking at the beta.etherpad.org site, it would be pretty cool if Tiddlywiki could be loosely integrated with Etherpad software as an optional backend for handling simultaneous tiddler editing.

Nice idea. The iframe viewer is simple to implement. ... but there is no communication other than copy / paste.

With etherpad, the backend is not trivial and public free services are not very reliable atm. If you really want simultaneous editing the sync mechanism is relatively complex.
 

If the editing of a tiddler could be optionally switched from editing "Draft of Tiddler Name" to "https://custom_etherpad_site.org/p/Tiddler_Name" and the result returned as a export option in etherpad,
that would take care of a lot of issues.

Yes. And creates a lot of new ones. Access rights, Group management, User management, .... TW has no UI for this atm, but etherpad needs it that way. see the doc.
 

I'm not sure if etherpad has a clear API for doing all of this.

There is a relatively simple API, that lets you read and write whole tiddlers. Group, User, access rights management is there too. But as I looked the last time, imo the authentication system doesn't work well with a web app like TW.

eg:

Also have a look at this request example: http://pad.domain/api/1/createAuthorIfNotExistsFor?apikey=secret&name=Michael&authorMapper=7
which can be found here: http://etherpad.org/doc/v1.5.6/#index_http_api

see: http:// and ?appkey=secret ....    nobody should send plain text keys over http:// !

They may have improved the possibilities, so more reading would be needed. May be someone else may jump in here.

As I wrote, the "simple read the whole document API" is far away from simultaneous editing.

For simultaneous editing, you basically need to send a packet every view key strokes. This API is much more complex, since you can have more than 2 editors at the same time.

I see it has been discussed in the past but I think in the context of TWC. Just a thought to throw out there as the new "tiddler in an independent window" stuff coming down the pike might lend itself easily to something like that.

IMO if we just want simultaneous editing the new native browser based WebRTC mechanism would be preferable. It creates direct connections without the need of a server. Except for establishing the connection.
Latest browsers have online chat built in: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-hello-video-and-voice-conversations-online

also see: http://www.webrtc.org/web-apis/firefox

just my 2 cents
mario