better handling of existing text files or directories

[theweekendgeek]

So i have my projects in text files, mostly because i used writemonkey2 before and also because it is just easy to switch applications that way import, export them etc.

now, when i want to work with these files, I copy my words into the application, then bind to the existing file in a folder, which works well so far.

the problem then, however, is that whenever i start writemonkey3 or whenever i switch to another bound file (or just switch to the favorites tab) i get this confirmation dialog that the old file has been deleted or moved and if i want to recreate it.

I usually hit ok, and my words are all there but it really doesn't feel reassuring and is also a bit of a pain, to do this every time i switch files or start the application.

I have been thinking about switching to what seems to be the more "natural" approach of writemonkey3 and using the database, but since i have my writing project under version control this would mean i have to have one big repository for all projects instead of smaller ones, so i would acually like to be able to more elegantly handle text files or maybe even whole folders, containing text files.

[BsNoSi]

I have to admit, that this discription leads me to a way of work, I did not see up to now. I will try this. Without this as a possible solution for my daily work, I would prefer to have a choice, whether I can use the internal database or a directory structure.

I am using wm3 for ideas and text fragments, that I would like to access directly with other tools. Currently, I am using the clipboard, which is not very handy, because any changes has to be copied back an forth – you may savly imagine, that this is prone to error.

[BsNoSi]

One question: are modifications of the textfile from external tools notified by wm3 and optionally taken into the database?

This is a mandatory requirement for me, because otherwise I can have different versions of a text. They have to "syncrhonise automatically".

[atoav]

As a double-donor on WM2 and WM3 the first question that came to my mind when opening the new writemonkey was: "It looks good!" and "But how will I interface with my existing files"? I found the Bind to File option.

I write mostly .md and .fountain formats (Fountain is like markdown but for screenplays). And because you never know when inspiration hits you, I often write on my phone (using sth like Jotterpad) and sync the files back and forth via Syncthing.

While Bind to File is already much nicer than nothing, I found it really makes my "write wherever"-workflow a lot more difficult.

Issues I have with it:

• when I open a file, it should either ask wether to bind to that file or at least use the opened file's path as a default path of the Bind to File's file chooser. The way it is now I'd have to navigate to my texts folder for every single file over and over again to bind every single file.
• it is somehow untransparent to me. There should be at least some sort of transparent visual indicator that shows me the difference between: "You are working on a file now" and "You are working only in the DB now" and maybe also: "The text is the same as stored on disk", "You modified the file" (Edit, see: #15 Visual save / is saved indicator )
• Outside modifications of the file have to be noticed, there should be some sort of notification and either some sort of diff-functionality (which would also make sense for the whole modification history thing) or some other optionn tho choose or merge one version.

Database or file-based? The best thing would be to support both things simulatenously. While this may seem weird and unecessary from a programmers POV, in the end the reason I'd like to have this would be long term robustness. If I like to open my texts in 20-30 years I want to be sure that I (and anybody else) can. With markdown or text files this is a piece of cake, with a specialized database not so much (try opening file formats from the early 90s). If well written this syncing functionality could also work as some sort of "backup" that saves your ass when the db get's corrupted for whatever reason.

[ajsteele]

I would like to second this feature request. I think a logical structure for a WM project would be a series of MD files in a directory, with a per-project database storing the repositories and other information which can't be stored in Markdown. This would be better for futureproofing, compatibility with other software, and managing drafts with external version control.

Additionally, the 'bind to file' interface at the moment limits portability. I have my database in cloud storage, but because the local path to my cloud directory is not the same across the different machines I work on, the project crashes if opened on another machine unless I unbind the files on the first machine before doing so. I think the paradigm of projects as folders would improve this.

[asteres]

This is also my use case and I think the simplest way to solve this for me would be to build database sync into Writemonkey. If there are two Writemonkey databases in the user's data/home directory synchronize/combine them. When Syncthing notices the two directories have different databases it will copy the "conflicting" one to the folder and ask the user which one to keep. At this point writemonkey automatically take care of it! 😄

[BTCarpenter]

I will third this feature request.

I came to WriteMonkey3 because of the exceptional writing experience! The biggest downside in my mind is the difficulty in working with existing files and directories. The ability to use Write Monkey with directories only would be fantastic. WriteMonkey would no longer have one hand tied.

Using directories + the database would be even better. It would be a serious heavyweight.

Portability is becoming much more of a priority to me and it seems to also be important to others.