Re: suggestions

[email protected] wrote:

 > On Apr 8, 2005, at 2:47 PM, Atte Andr=E9 Jensen wrote:
 >> * deletion of pages
 > That's what I do. Could easily program a button or link with Javascrip=
t
 > to do this for the user.

So you're pro deletion? As an option in config file?

 >> * renaming of pages
 >  I tell users that they have to
 > make a new page, copy the content and delete the old page. Before
 > deleting the old page, you can click on the on the page name at the to=
p.
 > This does a FullSearch for the page name. Should find everyplace the
 > page is referenced.

So you're pro-renaming? As an option in the config file?

 >> * association of an IP with a WikiName
 > 2 methods I can think of.
 >    1) Require a login to edit pages; that way one can use the
 > environment variable $REMOTE_USER. But, this would mean splitting the
 > "edit" function out into a separate CGI so it could be configured to u=
se
 > authentication without having to authenticate just to view pages

I don't like the idea that users should login at a wiki. I think it's
against the simple, straightahead nature of wiki...

 >    2) Require a user name field in the edit form. Of course, people
 > could fill in anything. One would have to depend on people's good will=
.

I don't think people would fill that in...

 >> * edit lock
 > I coded in a fairly complete locking system in my version of awkiawki.
 > In a subsequent Wiki program that I wrote from scratch, I dropped the
 > locking idea. Instead, I do a checksum on the file when the edit form =
is
 > displayed, then check the checksum on save. If there's a change, I
 > notify the user that someone else changed the file while they were
 > working on it, and explain what they need to do to save their changes.
 > It happens so seldom, that this seems like a cleaner, simpler solution=
.

If two people have the same page open for editing and both save their
changes, they are in trouble and on looses. Just because it rarely
happens doesn't change the fact that it's trouble.

Warning the user at save doesn't prevent trouble, it just tells him he's
in trouble. It's a bit better than the original approach, where someone
would unknowingly loose edits.

I thinks a prevention of trouble would be best. If it rarely kicks in,
fine, but I think it would be very, very nice. I vote for a lock system,
optional from config-file.


 >> BTW: I'm not sure how many people already visited the wiki I set up (=
I'm
 >> not even sure how many people read this list), but I would appreciate
 >> any feedback on the modified version of awki. Besides adding some
 >> features, I even fixed a few bugs (for instance RCS showed up in the
 >> PageList), and I think the modified awki is quite ready for use...
 >>
 >>
 > I don't know that I'm ready to accept your version as the new official
 > one. The original is a project on SourceForge. The right way to do it =
is
 > for someone to correspond with Oliver and see about taking over the
 > project.

Agreed. We don't need branching, we need merging and development.

 > In addition, I think some discussion with the awkiawki
 > community about what features should be added and how they should be
 > added is in order. Several of us have highly modified versions, and ha=
ve
 > certain ideas about what's appropriate and what isn't.

I hope we can talk about that here than (isn't that what we're doing
right now?). I'm very open for discussion. But I think it's a pity that
awaki-development is stopped and that so many branches exist.

 > Oliver's original
 > philosophy was to stay simple and true to the original WikiWiki. He
 > avoided adding features that were outside those parameters. Some might
 > call it a "purist" approach. I prefer to think of it as in keeping wit=
h
 > the Zen of WikiWiki. If nothing else, it avoids feature creep.

I agree a wiki should be pure and clean. But there might be a step up
from pure to functional. I read your
http://www.avcnet.org/wiki?page=3DWikiEssence and agree with most of what
you say. But certain things are IMHO just a nessecary evil, for instance
keeping backups. If all people were nice guys (and nobody accidently hit
a wrong button) backups weren't needed, but the world's not like that.

 > If you want to read about all the stuff I did, see
 > http://www.avcnet.org/wiki?page=3DAwkiWorkInProgress

I didn't know about that. You made some really, really nice things (and
also some things that I'm indifferent about, and a few that I might
oppose). We even did some of the same things. That's exactly what's a
pity, and the main reason I started this discussion: waisted work. Had I
known about your version I would have started with that, and would only
have had to do a few minor things..

 > You can, of course, just "fork" the program and hope that others will
 > follow you. Generally, when that's done, the name of the program is
 > changed, so it's clear that it isn't the same program,  even though it
 > started with the same code base.

No forking, please. I think we need merging...

--=20
peace, love & harmony
Atte

http://www.atte.dk


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D6595&alloc_id=3D14396&op=3Dclick