should be .writefreely, and maybe Writefreely in windows
- Restricted Diffusion Commit
Restricted Diffusion Commit
I've been thinking about this one this morning.
Do we want to support being authenticated for multiple accounts on one host at a given time?
Or just store preferences and eventually synced posts, for each user.
.writefreely //user state .writefreely/user.json //would be write.as account if any .writefreely/host/user.json //would be current user for host .writefreely/host/user/posts/.. //sync once complete //config preferences, default user etc .writefreely/config.ini .writefreely/host/config.ini .writefreely/host/user/config.ini //and for anonymous posts .writefreely/posts.psv .writefreely/host/posts.psv .writefreely/host/user/posts.psv
Another question, do we want to have write.as as the default? as above. Or as a host like others, so we would require writefreely CLI users to either specify a host or set a default. I'm leaning towards this myself.
second iteration for structure and hierarchy
|.writefreely/host/user.json||would be current user for host|
|.writefreely/config.ini||would have defaults for post prefs and default host|
|.writefreely/host/config.ini||same as above but only for this host plus default user and collection|
|.writefreely/host/user/config.ini||user+host specific prefs for posts and default collection|
|.writefreely/host/posts.psv||all unclaimed posts on this host from local machine|
I'd say yes, we should support being authenticated for multiple users on one host. So .writefreely/host/username.ini or .writefreely/host/username/config.ini. As for the location to store posts, see T584#10089.
I'd say Write.as should not be the default, especially since it has its dedicated writeas-cli client. If people want to add Write.as in writefreely-cli it'll be just another host. But most likely, people will use the Write.as-specific client, anyway.