|
> I've no plans to do this (unfortunately for you )
Don't mean this to come out as an attack - not unfortunately for me, for everyone. And all I really mean by that is, you yourself have comments in this forum that you regretted going with XML in the first place.
- it being something that seemingly has given you grief every step of the way, since.
(Not that I'm disagreeing with the choice, hindsight is 20:20. Another good idea the execution of which didn't pan out.)
[For those same ideas/reasons, Linux has still not moved to a centralized information bit like the windows registry - textual .ini file equivalents everywhere have just worked out too well for everyone. Despite their shortcomings. I don't expect that to change any time soon. Why would anyone not think human readable XML wasn't a good idea. Especially given btree's success.]
How many inquiries / how much time have you spent over the years, just in 'printing' or 'stylesheet' issues, alone? Just non-productive, gets old really fast, time suckage, in even having them cross your monitor, wading through the distraction, let alone in answering them?
> I can definitely understand that people may prefer a more centralised data storage system
People (users) don't care what's under the hood, they just want to get what they need to do done, and get on with their day. So you could store the data as smoke signals, for all they care, as long as they can get on with their day quickly. However, given every user (it seems) thinks their own special printed output format is the cat's meow, and the learning curve presented by XML and resulting impediment preventing users from getting on with their day, it begins to matter, let alone to them.
Assuming there is 'something else' that would let them get on with that, if there were a different back end.
Given the other Freemind thread, I do wonder ... how much effort would it take for TDL to use the 'Freemind' back end instead? IIRC, it's also XML, and it's backend should be a super-set of TDL's. Should it not only be just about a matter of change a header file and get on with your day? Fields are fields, databases are databases. The TDL special sauce is not the database, but the data relationships and processing, data interpretation and business rules, not data storage mechanisms. (?)
And would not accomplishing such, instantly let you and your users leverage all the other richness that will be present in that community? Such as reports, data integrity, documentation, community - and take a load off of you for a lot of the fiddly bits most every ecosystem needs? (Let alone bring a richness of functionality and simplicity that Freemind, et al, so desperately needs, itself.)
Even just using a schema - without it, how do you do data integrity checks? With it, XML tools gain an understanding of the data structure, for you to leverage and not reinvent wheels. You aren't (apparently) interested in exposing the user tools, necessary by your own comment to be able to filter data, via command line, and encourage the use of 3rd party tools for direct interpretation of the .tdl data file. But without the schema adherence, those very same 3rd tools are hamstrung in their usefulness - so this is all very confusing. Chicken and egg, even.
> I also don't use SQL directly to read the task hierarchy, I just pull all the required row data with a simple SELECT statement, sort the rows to ensure that parents always preceed children and then build the tree sequentially.
SQL, select, it's all still a rose. [Please substitute (generic) database query wherever you see 'SQL'. It's all fields and rows, regardless of the specific language used to talk to it.]
|
|
|
|
|
(Aspect 2)
"The format (which I wasn't expecting to reveal) is:"
- this tag applies to both list level and task level?
- interface?
i.e. You noted earlier / elsewhere, if I just slap a field into the .tdl, tdl will overwrite it.
So by what means would I get the data in so that it's maintained?
In either case, presumably this is just a list of key/data pairs. (i.e. your controls / objects are already present, just no subtasks permitted.)
- ouch: maybe not. doc.author, doc.copyright, doc.tags, doc.permissions, also seem not unreasonable.
So, right-click on a task or 'the list', choose properties, and a simple list dialog is presented?
In the mean time, it's easy enough to code an xsl for these fields, but how to get the data in and have it stick?
|
|
|
|
|
> - interface?
You note in another response, plugin.
So does this mean if I manually put in something like:
<TODOLIST ...
<METADATA>
<Maintainer>Dan G.</Maintainer>
</METADATA>
It will stick / be preserved / not stripped out by TDL?
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Played. Works for me.
Except ... TDL is not preserving the lines.
Can you advise that they should be, or will be going forward?
|
|
|
|
|
I recall Dan was working on an tasklist owner a while back. Not sure what became of that.
|
|
|
|
|
.
If I throw a field into the tdl, is it just going to be overwritten?
e.g. I could throw an AUTHOR= attribute into the task list and get on with my day in the meantime.
Pointless if it's just going to disappear at next TDL write, though.
.
|
|
|
|
|
This is what 'Custom Attributes' are for: 'Tools > Add/Edit Custom Columns...'.
And, Yes, adding tags manually to a .tdl file will get them overwritten.
|
|
|
|
|
.
By chance, did you miss my point? These are list attributes, not task attributes.
Wouldn't custom columns potentially add a field to every task, not just a single field to the list?
.
|
|
|
|
|
_BS_ wrote: Wouldn't custom columns potentially add a field to every task, not just a single field to the list? Sure.
If you want to assign an author to a whole list try this:
1. Menu: View>'Show project name field' to show the field
2. Enter a combination of the lists name and the author (John Doe - listname or Listname (Doe, John) etc.)
3. Menu: View>'Show project name field' to hide the field.
Done.
This way you do not have to rename the list on the HDD.
Jochen
|
|
|
|
|
Unless you're already using that for it's intended purpose.
It is probably reasonable that there are entire list attributes, like maintainer. Arguably even the list itself deserves a comment field. e.g. Purpose.
In my case I'm looking for:
{Project Name}
------
{Maintainer} - {Last Modified} ({Rev.})
Arguably under the name could go a comment of: A project to complete the blah blah blah, see {link}. Project to be completed by, having the constraints of ...
|
|
|
|
|
_BS_ wrote: Unless you're already using that for it's intended purpose.
What is the purpose - in your opinion - of the project name field?
Usually if I create a new list I save it and by doing that I give it a name. That name is shown by ToDoList all the time in the wintitle.
Is the project name field just good for giving a list a very long name? Or use characters that are not allowed in file names?
Jochen
|
|
|
|
|
TCP_JM wrote: Is the project name field just good for giving a list a very long name? Or use characters that are not allowed in file names? Pretty much, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Project name is good for giving the project a name.
Projects have many more attributes than just their name. Some are already present, such as last modified.
Do file / properties on something, a document or spreadsheet, for example, and you will see examples of many other useful 'list level' attributes. Or check out IPTC or Exif data for similar file metadata. Not that I think shutter speed, or aperture, applies to a project file, but you should get the idea.
In the end, by definition, no one lives in a vacuum or an island - we are members of teams and work in groups - and so must share and communicate what we do and are on about. So if I hand you a copy of my list, where (whom) it's from, what it's all about, when last updated, are just a small subset of what might be useful to be able to communicate / print / display about a list.
Given the current organization of TDL (e.g. Multiple categories, 1-9?), it could be quite reasonable to simply make CUSTOMLISTATTRIBUTES 1 - 9. (Perhaps with tags? i.e. labels for the fields?) CLA0_Name = 'Author', CLA0_Data = 'Dan'. Over time, use may lead to a (unmandated?) convention that CLA0 is used for 'Author'?
|
|
|
|
|
.dan.g. wrote: TCP_JM wrote: Is the project name field just good for giving a list a very long name? Or use characters that are not allowed in file names? Pretty much, yes. Thanks for your reply. That's what I thought .
Jochen
|
|
|
|
|
My mistake, you are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
have you ever considered including some basic mind mapping functionality in your app?
I would guess it could be very helpful as none of the external tools (like FreeMind) is designed especially for task management...
Thanks, M.
|
|
|
|
|
Basically there's an import function from XMind in TDL so you can work with your mind maps easily. As for built-in functionality I've never seen an app successfully combining two of these, mindmapping and task management . The main difference is in the approach itself: mindmapping is used to brainstorm and generate as many thoughts and ideas as possible in whatsoever form (you can call it 'stage 1') while task management is needed on a further stage ('stage 2') helping to organize and complete your tasks. Each approach is better for its own stage, I personally use them accordingly.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
.
tdl is Freemind, et al, without the GUI.
One way to think of it. Certainly one way I use it.
... don't need no stinkin' GUI's!
And I find the totality of the results much easier to grasp - the 'diagram' being much tighter / compact. And a whole lot faster to work with. e.g. Much less mousing.
Sharing is problematic either way - hand them a tdl result and they look at you like you're a space alien. (C'mon people, it's just indented bullet points, how hard a concept is that to grasp? While remaining stupidly easy to move up, down, all around.) While trying to keep a mindmap on one (printable) page to share is ... frustrating.
.
|
|
|
|
|
_BS_ wrote: tdl is Freemind, et al, without the GUI.
It is not. As I mentioned above each approach has its own goals. Mindmapping is mostly used to "generate, visualize, structure, and classify ideas, and as an aid to studying and organizing information, solving problems, making decisions, and writing" (taken from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_map[^]).
Moreover, Tony Buzan ("father" of mindmapping in its modern concept) says that while "traditional" outlines force readers to scan left to right and top to bottom, readers actually tend to scan the entire page in a non-linear fashion. This is the classical view of a mind map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MindMapGuidlines.svg[^]. Does it seem to have an outline view? Or probably this http://freeplane.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/File:WhatIsMindMapping.jpg?
Sure everybody is free to use anything according to his needs but if talk about classical approach to mindmapping it has more of semantics in it.
_BS_ wrote: the 'diagram'
C'mon it's a third approach with different attributes
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
mugrrrr wrote: _BS_ wrote: tdl is Freemind, et al, without the GUI.
It is not
It is.
Quibble all you want, and deep dive whether FreeMind, FreePlane, or XMind implement true mind maps, they are all graphical tree representations.
Just visually and graphically laid out instead of only textually laid out.
Let alone how it's defined, and how it's commonly (but not always) used, seldom being the same thing. [Inevitably, perhaps unfortunately and sadly, in common parlance, Freemind == mindmapping.]
- e.g. Can be a bear to represent / maintain (additional) 'links'. (For lack of a better / correct term.)
mugrrrr wrote: talk about classical approach to mindmapping it has more of semantics in it. - I think you just made my point.
</flamewar>
.
|
|
|
|
|
/holywar>
_BS_ wrote: It is.
How dare you insist on your point?!? We, classical adepts of classical mindmapping, will purge you with our distilled arguments and notions
What I'm saying it's not very difficult to implement mindmap integration into any outliner technically (or vice versa, as an example have a look at MindManager), its very essence is lost between in the lines. Clasically you are to take a pencil, a piece of paper and get down all your thoughts just in any form you like so it is not obligatory can be in a tree-from.
Alex
modified 10-Dec-13 6:45am.
|
|
|
|
|
mugrrrr wrote:
_BS_ wrote: It is.
How dare you insist on your point?!? We, classical adepts of classical mindmapping, will purge you with our distilled arguments and notions
What I'm saying it's not very difficult to implement mindmap integration into any outliner technically (or vice versa, as an example have a look at MindManager), its very essence is lost between in the lines. Clasically you are to take a pencil, a piece of paper and get down all your thoughts just in any form you like so it is not obligatory can be in a tree-from.
Was that Greco, or Roman? How'd that work out for them? Where are they now? Where is Visicalc now?
Agreed on the form. Point being that's not how it got implemented, and people assume / associate that 'they did it the right way'.
- from what I've seen, good brainstorming can only really be done with a white board. And some poor sucker who has to render it in Freemind later. (Which I export to Freeplane, extract the treeview, <eeyyy>.)
So, completely agree with you, just I get all that I need out of a tree form, without all the work of the added bits. Mostly use notepad over Writer, too. And will only use plain text e-mail.
And absolutely agree YMMV, each to their own.
FONTS!?! Why in *MY* day we only needed one font! Green! Managers got Orange! Why them newbie's with Blue ... <sheesh!>
Please note, this represents EXPERIENCE. Not classical ... as that would be ANCIENT.
|
|
|
|
|
_BS_ wrote: from what I've seen, good brainstorming can only really be done with a white board.
Agree. That's what we do actually.
_BS_ wrote: just I get all that I need out of a tree form, without all the work of the added bits.
Me too It's easier for me now to import my thoughts (Dan, what about adding "Thoughts" format into "Import tasks" menu? ) directly into TDL, but please keep it a secret so people'd not think I'm flaming .
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
mugrrrr wrote: what about adding "Thoughts" format into "Import tasks" menu Cool, just give me the format
|
|
|
|
|
That is exactly why I am asking about it... I agree that these are two consequent stages: (1) in an mind-mapping tool you generate and sort out the thoughts resulting to a structure of tasks - and here is what is missing in conventional mind-mapping tools - and it would be great to be able assign dates and priorities to tasks still at this stage when everything is laid out clearly and easily and then (2) to go to next stage and manage the tasks etc.
|
|
|
|
|