In a multiuser-wiki, I guess also a tool to identify orphaned bags could be useful.
That is to say bags now wiki refers to anymore or to wikis of users that are gone.
Does something like that exist?
In this case, you mean to say “Bags which belong to no Recipes.”
No, that doesn’t exist currently, but it’s an interesting idea. Perhaps a more elegant solution would be, for each bag, a list of all recipes to which a bag belongs?
Great, it would be cool to have a filter on top to see which bag is assosiated with which recipe… and which is not used at all.
And should/could there be a tool to see which recipe is owned resp shown to which user?
Maybe an admin panel would be better suited for this? I would be concerned about cluttering up this main page too much – and I don’t think it would be necessary for all users to have this knowledge. Thoughts?
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
Recipes already show the bags that are in them
And I am proposing recipes with which a bag are associated should be listed beneath them
So what additional filtering would you like to see?
-
"Show me only bags that are associated with this recipe?"
Is there any reason why this would be superior than just looking at the recipe list? -
"Show me only recipes that are associated with this bag?"
Why would this be superior to just checking the associated recipes list?
The only thing I could imagine might be beneficial would be filtering for multiple bags in a recipe, like, show me only recipes that contain A and B but not C – though I’d be interested in hearing more about the scenario this would be called for which could not be handled better with administrative levels.
In a similar vein, I wonder if it would not be sufficient to include list-sorting, so the user could, for example, sort by number of recipes to which a bag is associated? Low to high, therefore, first showing bags included in no recipes.
I don’t believe there is anything inherently “orphaned” (though I certainly understand your choice of word) about having bags that have no recipes - especially if moving multiple tiddlers between bags is easy, someone might want to have repository bags that they could shuffle tiddlers in and out of, which would be associated with no recipes – and that could be especially helpful if some of those bags contain large media files, for example, or time-sensitive content such as in the case of coursework.
1 Like
This is only true for “public” recipes. An owner should be able to define, if a recipe is visible to others. The same is true for bags. Otherwise it would be a privacy issue.
1 Like
I could imagine a tiered administrative system where if you have access to a level you could be given permissions to see the owners of other wikis in your tier and/or beneath your tier. I would need to put more thought into the bigger picture of wiki administration, since my current needs are not especially broad in that sense.
If I understand @JanJo 's use case though, I think they would have a good perspective on this.
1 Like
I guess administrative Tools like that become absolutely necessary given a certaike number of users. @jeremyruston How do you treat these questions at anna freud?
Now that I’ve got delete, filter tiddlers, and move tiddlers between bags, I’ve made another attempt using my primary wiki and noticed, when I tried to log in on a second device, it logged me out of my first device. Is this default behavior, or a bug that I’ve stumbled across? Anyone else getting this?
I could definitely see this being helpful in some cases, and it might even be a good option to implement in one’s account settings… however, it would be a bit of a pain for me as an every-time thing.
From my point of view that’s a bug. Since it should be mulit-user, multi-device it should work with the same user an several devices too.
Same as if you would access gmail from 2 devices at the same time
1 Like
I think this is definitely a bug (although I agree it could be useful behaviour in some situations). I’ve made a ticket here:
Anna Freud use Xememex, a multi-user implementation of bags and recipes for TiddlyWiki that I developed in 2016/17. It is based on Amazon Web Services and the serverless architecture. It has a separate admin screen with the ability to list and modify bags, recipes, spaces and users. There will be something similar for MWS in due course.
4 Likes
Some further testing confirms that moving tiddlers between bags has no effect on how their bag value is displayed (I didn’t really expect it to, since I didn’t tell it to do that when I set up the button, but thought it worth confirming).
My question is – when we move from a source-bag to a target-bag, should we update the bag field of each tiddler to the value of target-bag? Is it truly vestigial at this point, or is there some intention for it in the future?
My instinct on this is to update the value so that when it’s displayed in the wiki someone could reference its origin – as long as that wont interfere with any bigger-picture plans down the line.
1 Like
I’m talking about the bag field in the tiddler info, within the wiki.
These are my old tiddlers rather than newly created ones, so it could just be a value that’s carried over.
I could imagine times where one might want to be able to filter within wiki by source bag, which is what got me wondering if it should be included in the move-betwren-bags operation
1 Like
I think that is what has happened. MWS itself doesn’t use a bag field, but it was used by some earlier TiddlyWiki-based server systems such as TiddlyWeb/TiddlySpace.
Got it, was chasing my own tail 
Thoughts (anybody?) on introducing the bag field to tiddlers when they are created moved into MWS bags? The architecture is already there to keep the field hidden, and it would be simple to instruct that the the database update the bag-field when tiddlers are created or moved.
I can imagine client-side situations where, inside the wiki, one might want to group tiddlers according to the bags to which they belong – and while that could be achieved through adding some other tag or field, it seems to me that bag is a value that already exists and might as well be utilized.
My current single-file setup with Apache and WebDAV serves me well and is such that access requires no noticeable authentication
- from my home (IPv4 and 6) addresses
- or from my devices which use a key in the URI (shortcuts on mobile devices’ home screens)
otherwise can use HTTP authentication (for use on any other random computer/location)
The configuration has this
<RequireAny>
Require ip a.b.c.d 2a0d:blah:blah/48
Require expr "%{QUERY_STRING} == 'somethingorother'"
Require user myusername
</RequireAny>
Is there a neat way to do this with MWS or does it have to be coded up ?
Ta,
Jon
1 Like