I know that there are atleast 4 or 5 third party dynamic tables plug ins. But shouldn’t there be a official or core plug in for dynamic tables. I want to use dynamic tables in many of my wikis to show various data from tiddler fields. I don’t want to invest too much time into this and later find that the plug in that I use won’t get updated. I think dynamic tables is a essential functionality which should be available atleast as an official plug in. Atleast this will ensure that the tables will work as long as TW is there.
I do think that @Mohammad is as conscientious about updating plugins (and otherwise contributing to the community) as any developer could be. Shiraz dynamic tables is surely the most robustly developed solution for dynamic tables, and one that has a great track record with being improved in light of feedback from users.
I do use Shiraz dynamic tables in my wikis. I also use Tiddlytables (in my budget wiki) which is little more advanced than Shiraz. But Tiddlytables is no longer maintained. So I don’t know how long I can keep using it. I had tried to implement my budget wiki using Shiraz dynamic tables, but I found it difficult to recreate.
I know that Mohammad will keep updating shiraz as long as he use TW. But I don’t think he wants to add more advanced features to dynamic tables and make it more complicated. He wants to keep it as simple as it’s is now. So I don’t want to cripple him with feature requests. Ideally it would be better to seperate dynamic tables from shiraz and make it a sub plug in.
Why I asked for a official plug in for dynamic tables is because it’s an essential functionality which needs to be present as long as TW exists without depending on third party plug in creators.
If you maintain it, we will implement it. … Oh wait …
But the core developers should invest the time to implement it, maintain it and add all sort of extra features that you may need in the future. … right? … Wrong
The TW core implements and maintains generic building blocks, that allow users to create highly advanced functionality for their usecases.
Dynamic tables may be one of them. … There are 3rd party plugins … Use them. … If you rely on them, you should help the developers to maintain them. … Since you rely on them.
That’s how Open Source works. Open Source software is free. … Like in “free speech” not like in “free beer”
I think you are confusing something here.
Since it doesn’t add any functionality that isn’t already available to the program, I don’t see why it should be an official plugin.
If there is something major that you feel is needed, and can’t do it yourself, TiddlyWiki Marketplace is the perfect way to incentivize someone else to take the time & effort.
I have use for dynamic tables in many of my wikis. That might be the case for many people (I may not be true). Since I will be using it in many wikis, I have a genuine concern about some compactibilty issues which may arise in the future especially if the plug in is no longer maintained (and if the creator no longer respond to queries). Thats a real possibility. Just go through the dynalist toolmap or tiddlywiki links org and see how many of the old plug ins have small or big incompatility issues with newer versions of TW. So it might be better to use minimal amount of plug ins. Since I am only in the beginning stage for many of those wikis, I can avoid using dynamic tables and be happy with whatever else is available. Thats why I was asking whether dynamic tables could be an official plug in. It was just a query.
It’s always good idea to support developers, but there should be an easy way of doing it. Members of this forum might be from different countries. In my case, I havent done any international transaction yet in my life. So I am not sure how to go about it.
Ya. Thats correct. I was only worried about the days after the next significant upgrade after 5.3.0. Especially since it’s no longer maintained. Whom to ask if something breaks. I haven’t got any reliable replies to my questions about Tiddlytables in the past in this forum.
I have seen the market place before. But not much discussions have happened there rite. I might need a help from some developers in the marketplace for my cloze macro (flashcard). I haven’t got time to revisit that project recently. May be one day after the 5.3.0 release, I will post about it in the marketplace.
The same is true of TiddlyWiki as a whole. While @jeremyruston is trying to make a living from this, nearly everyone else is a volunteer, I believe. You simply have no guarantee that it will continue to receive updates or bug-fixes.
But the same is true of commercial software; while you may have a support contract for some period, there’s no guarantee that they’d be willing to extend it after that period or that they’ll continue to fix and update it.
The advantage of open source, is that you yourself can make changes as needed. If you don’t have the skills, you can try to find someone else to do it for you.
It’s perfectly legitimate to request that something makes it into the core. That’s one means by which maintainers learn what their users desire. Just don’t push too hard, as you are not in a position to make such decisions, and yours is simply one voice among many.
That’s where it takes some maintainers with a sense of what belongs in the core, what is highly desired, and what takes some core-level expertise to maintain. I for one have never used dynamic tables plugins. If I were to vote for the item I most wanted moved to core it would be the Relink plugin. But I also have no standing on that.
And that query is fine, so long as you don’t push too hard.
I agree it would make sense to move some form of dynamic tables into a core plugin if not into the core, and we can put some reasonable arguments for this, however if we do so it needs to be simple to use and extend and not requiring too many bytes. This may not result in a solution as extensive as the currently published Dynamic tables which may not be as functional as @arunnbabu81 would like.
Why do I think some form should be included?
- TiddlyWiki is like a 4th Generation language, it is great at handling lists and groups sets etc…
- It is common when one has records and lists to present them in tables, or treat and interrogate data, as if they were tables. but also enter the world of entity relationships like one gets from SQL and keys and index tables etc…
- I have in the past generated dynamic tables to present common tiddlywiki data and relationships and a lot of utility can be gained from this, help with internal documentation and for people to explore their data in their wiki.
- I would see a lot of value for new and existing users to leverage the TiddlyWiki platform if we included a few more tools towards “tabulation”.
What are the challenges?
- This would be a serious design effort and should involve a range of contributors with different perspectives.
- The result will need to be informed by core, UX, naive and advanced users and TiddlyWiki philosophy.
I would be happy to be involved in the journey.
Passing by here, just want to add that I’m using Powershell lately and found the Powershell’s “out-gridview” command to be a simple and very effective way to tabulate output. The Dynamic Tables variants in Tiddlywiki seem to be similar, if more sophisticated version of “out-gridview”.
Something basic and functionally equivalent to “out-gridview” in TW core will be great if possible. A sample output of “out-gridview” is below which you can try on your Windows machine, the poweshell command is in the window title:
I would second this – without this using links to organize or structure data becomes unreliable. Every other wiiki/pkm can do this. It’s way more fundamental than say, “QR codes” or “Comments”, which are in the plugin library. I’ve avoided extensive use of links exactly because of this problem.
For me, I just always include Relink for any substantial wiki.
I would like to officially apologise myself for the harsh tone in my reply to your post. I did overreact. I’m sorry.
I think it’s important to mention TiddlyWiki generally doesn’t stop working if you continue to use an older version, without upgrading it. It just really depends on the kind of content you are putting into your wiki whether or not the new features will be needed. I understand the concern if a plugin might stop working but if the features added are in high demand there will be motivation for someone to fix the issue