I'm attempting to revive, cross-reference, and reorganize the discussion of this TWiki usage pattern as LotsOfSmallWebs. A lot of discussion appears below, but it's difficult for someone new to it (like me) to determine the current status of the ideas and mechanisms discussed. Would someone please summarize TWiki's current capabilities and future directions for managing LotsOfSmallWebs? -- MitchellModel - 05 Oct 2002
Some "top level" webs would always be visible, while hundreds of nested webs might only become visible when the user navigates to the "parent" for them. Of course, they're always navigable for a user that knows their destination URL; this is simply a matter of what webs are presented in headers, lists, et cetera. I know a tree of Twiki webs is probably a lot more complicated to manage than a flat list, but it's important if a TWiki is to handle a large number of only semi-inter-related groups of people. I'm interested both in approaches to manage this within the existing TWiki structure and in approaches for extending TWiki to manage webs as a tree or a graph. Thoughts? -- PaulReiber - 04 Aug 2000| CoreTeam member | Would like feature | Concerned about theoretical complexity |
Concerned about implementation |
|---|---|---|---|
| PeterThoeny | |||
| NicholasLee | |||
| AndreaSterbini | |||
| JohnTalintyre | Yes as it is so often requested | Yes | Don't know |
| RichardDonkin | |||
| MikeMannix | |||
| Other Contributors comments | |||
| MartinCleaver | Yes | No | No |
| PeterNixon | Yes | No | No |
| WoutMertens | Yes | No | No (the code is real easy) |
| AdamTheo | Yes (great for think-tanks) | No | No |
| RandyKramer | Yes | No | No |
| AndyGlew | Yes | No | No |
| User comments | |||
| User | Would like feature | Concerned about theoretical complexity |
Concerned about implementation |
| RickArchibald | Yes | nqc | nqc |
| GillesEricDescamps | YES | No | No |
| "nqc" = "not qualified to comment" (better than "n/a") | |||
| Outstanding Issue | Issue Raiser | Whats wrong - from person concerned | Comment from PeterNixon / others |
| general Web selection mechanism. I believe MegaTWiki has a specific mechansim to select a new Web to view, TWiki has another. This is not skinable. At work (and in the TigerSkin) we have logical nested Web, with yet another mechansim. So I think we need a general purpose skinable way of representing hierarchical Webs. | JohnTalintyre | The navigation tree on the left works great for me -- WoutMertens | |
| tying this into skins and dialogues. Needs to be skinable and certain dialgoue e.g. search and rename need to be aware of the nesting. This is not trivial if you want it to be properly skinable. | JohnTalintyre | No real problems as far as I can see -- WoutMertens | |
| naming convention for nested webs | MartinCleaver | Need to settle on syntax for subwebs | Thisweb.Subweb.Topic seems to work best for wiki notation. Current implementation in MegaTWiki is limited to full path only for cross-web wiki linking. Thisweb/Thatweb/Subweb.Topic is also supported (e.g. where %WEB%.Topic resolves to Thisweb/Thatweb/Subweb.Topic ). Thisweb/Thatweb/Subweb/Topic seems to work best for URL's |
| bread crumb trail | RandyKramer | bread crumb trail should include (or become) the Web . Subweb . Subweb . ... . Topic -- not sure if the Parent / Child topic concept should continue to exist -- I don't keep a "logical" chain of Parent . Subparent . Subparent . ... . Topic -- does anybody? -- does anybody see the need / value of it? If it does remain: there should be a very simple UI to readjust the parent chain; and (IMHO) cross-web parent-child relationships should not be allowed (unless somebody has a logical reason for continuing to allow them -- to me it just adds a lot of confusion -- if we keep parent - child topics, the breadcrumb trail should be Web .Subweb Subweb ... Parent (in this subweb) ._Subparent (in this subweb) ... . Topic). Hmm, maybe hierarchical webs and parent / child is an either or thing -- maybe a TWiki switch should let the TWiki administrator choose one or the other, but disallow both. This in essence agrees with PeterKlausners comment of 17 Feb 2003 on HowToShowParentTopics Not sooo sure: I do use parents as bread crumb trail plus I do show the web as part of the path; I see no problem in having a string of webs + string of parents. BTW: there may well be several levels above the topmost web; twiki tool is not the root of everything, really And, yes, make easy parent edit Peter -- Thanks for responding! Do you see a problem in having a string of webs + string of parents where the string of parents can include pages from multiple webs? -- RandyKramer - 16 Apr 2003 |
|
| Pathname conveniences: relative, absolute, path, convenience linking | AndyGlew | see Hierarchically Nested Twiki Webs Naming |
[[][]]) via the Codev variable where it crops up the topic text (this is how I'm currently support it). General usage in topic text via the standard wiki linking method is prevented.
There doesn't appear to be any syntactical advantage or disadvantage of one over the other as far as parsing the text goes; I think it's more of a preference or implementation issue. The implementation advantage is that the syntax rules I've just described have already been implemented in MegaTWiki. The preference is "let's use dots in the topic text, and slashes in the URL, just like we've been doing all along".
As far as the URL used by the browser goes, I'd prefer to support the "/", as TWiki uses this to separate the Topic from the Web already, and it is used as a directory path separator already, assuming we're using hierarchically nested directories for our storage implementation; this is easiest, both to understand and to implement, as there are minimal changes to the core code and templates for this to occur Today.
I guess the gist is this: The current implementation (at least in MegaTWiki) doesn't necessarily seem all that broken; it handles itself nicely, though it could use a little polishing for consistency (the rename forms still present "/" to the user), and the users generally don't need to think about it all that much. I'll be posting the results of our user survey as soon as I get a decent amount of results back.
-- PeterNixon - 12 Jul 2002
I agree with Peter here, there are no real issues with the code, except for polishing. And nobody seems to have problems with the syntax. So far, nobody seems to have a need for relative web naming as in ../Someweb/TopicName ...
I installed MegaTWiki because of the fact that we have many little teams that all have MeetingNotes and private projects and whatnot, and hierarchical webs are just so much better for that. (also for email notification, you only get notifications from your team and the ones that interest you).
The fact is that we have one server, and many groups that have very low and hierarchical interaction, and therefore we need to reflect that in our TWiki web layout. We simply need this to be useful to many groups here.
So, please add in the necessary changes in BeijingRelease or CairoRelease
-- WoutMertens - 12 Aug 2002
Comments added in table above.
-- JohnTalintyre - 05 Oct 2002
Added to above table/poll.
-- AdamTheo - 22 Dec 2002
Added to above tables/polls.
-- RandyKramer - 18 Feb 2003
I'd like to get some discussion going on providing LogicallyNestedWebs.
-- JohnTalintyre - 06 Jun 2003
I see it's been a while since anyone added to this.
My $.02 -- We have a situation where we,
HLUG (Houston Linux Users Group) are using TWiki as a supplement to our regular web site.
Hosting is provided by a generous member on his commercial site.
This commercial site is physically hosted by a commercial service.
He has logical but not physical access to the machine.
(Virtual hosting, I believe, forgive my ignorance.)
Thus, he feels that setting up a second TWiki site on his "server" is not practical.
If we had hierarchically nested Twiki Webs,
presumably with the ability to have their own Main sub webs,
then he could have more than one TWiki on the same server.
-- RickArchibald - 28 Jan 2004
One approach that might work is to use Colas's Plugins.KoalaSkin- this
allows you to group together webs into logical groups. Whilst this isn't
the same as hierarchically nested twiki webs this probably gives you
something close to what you want. Failing that, even using the normal
skin, but by playing with WIKIWEBSLIST, you might be able to fake it.
(Patches for search to limit searches to just the subset might be needed
though)
A WIKIWEBLIST approach might work as follows - on Main.TWikiPreferences
(don't change TWiki.TWikiPreferences - it makes upgrades more awkward)
add settings: