TW 2.5.0: Tinytiddly and jQuery

[Swampy]

I have a few questions about TW 2.5.0.

1. What's the status of tinytiddly? [1] The documentation [2] sounds
as if it's a compressed or split version of the current TW release,
but the current tinytiddly is Version 2.4.3 whereas the latest version
of TW is 2.5.0.

2. TW 2.5.0 includes jQuery. However, jQuery is usually loaded from a
separate file [3], but the HTML file for TW 2.5.0 has jQuery embedded.
Is this the complete jQuery? Why embed it instead of keeping it a
separate file (so that one can update jQuery without having to update
TW)?

Thanx.


[1] http://tinytiddly.tiddlywiki.org/
[2] http://tiddlywiki.org/wiki/TinyTiddly
[3] http://docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:How_jQuery_Works#jQuery:_The_Basics

[Mark S.]

On Jun 20, 7:46 pm, Swampy <ma...@uri.edu> wrote:
> 2. TW 2.5.0 includes jQuery. However, jQuery is usually loaded from a
> separate file [3], but the HTML file for TW 2.5.0 has jQuery embedded.
> Is this the complete jQuery? Why embed it instead of keeping it a
> separate file (so that one can update jQuery without having to update
> TW)?

Just speaking as a user of TW, if jQuery wasn't embedded, I would
either have to always be working with an internet connection, or
always carry along the library file. Either of these would detract
from the "throw-it-on-stick" portability and charm of TW. Further,
upgrading jQuery apart from the rest of the TW code might result in
some subtle incompatibility. Unless there's some particular new "super-
cool" feature in a recent release of jQuery, why not just wait and use
the built-in upgrade technology?

/Mark*S/

[Gnosos]

I understand the point. Distribution and portability are easier with
embedded code. However, TW 2.5.0 already includes the separate file
TiddlySaver.jar, so complete portability involves copying two files.
With a separate jQuery directory, one could keep the old version of
jQuery and still try a new one simply by having two directories and
renaming them.

A good compromise might be having two versions of TW, one with the
embedded jQuery and one with a separate library. This is what one
version of tinytiddly did with the TW code itself, which partly
motivated my question. One would think that if the TW code resided in
a separate js file, jQuery would too.

[FND]

> What's the status of tinytiddly?

I was under the impression the the TinyTiddly build mechanism was now
largely automated, so it should in theory be up to date.
It might just be an oversight - will investigate and report back here.

> A good compromise might be having two versions of TW, one with the
> embedded jQuery and one with a separate library.

Since TiddlyWiki is built with a templating mechanism, you could fairly
easily cook this up yourself. I'm sure the community (myself included)
would welcome such a service (it might even be combined with TinyTiddly).
This is, however, beyond the scope of the standard distribution.

-- F.

[Gnosos]

Can you direct me to documentation about the templating mechanism and
building TiddlyWiki? I'm not making any promises, but I'm willing to
take a look at it.

- G.

[FND]

> Can you direct me to documentation about the templating mechanism and
> building TiddlyWiki?

This might be the best starting point:
http://tiddlywiki.org/wiki/Dev:Cook
The documentation is probably incomplete, so feel free to ask for
details on the developers' group so we can amend the docs.

-- F.