# Nroam - Org-roam backlinks within org-mode buffers **URL:** \ **Category:** Development\ **Created:** [February 21, 2021, 7:43pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306 "2021-02-21T19:43:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![NicolasPetton](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/nicolaspetton/32/663_2.png) [@NicolasPetton](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/NicolasPetton)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2021, 7:43pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/1 "2021-02-21T19:43:52Z")
Hi! I’ve been working on a package named nroam, a supplementary package for org-roam that replaces the backlink side buffer. Instead, it displays org-roam backlinks at the end of org-roam buffers. > **[NicolasPetton/nroam](https://github.com/NicolasPetton/nroam)** > > Org-roam backlinks within org-mode buffers. Contribute to NicolasPetton/nroam development by creating an account on GitHub. ![screenshot](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/orgroam/original/1X/7844c8657c6a663f85140434957e4c651f713e6c.png) The package is quite young, so use it with care (and backup your precious org files). I’d be really interested in feedback. Cheers, Nico ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/gustav/32/511_2.png) [@Gustav](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2021, 1:31pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/2 "2021-02-22T13:31:14Z")
This speaks to me! I’ve had the same concern and a backlinks section _in_ the document itself indeed seems like an improvement. Haven’t tried it though. Regarding performance, having optimized the org-id code myself, it is possible to make it fast. But all is relative I suppose. Have you done any profiling? If its slower than `org-id-update-id-locations` (from master) then there should be low hanging fruits in the performance department. ---
**Author:** ![NicolasPetton](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/nicolaspetton/32/663_2.png) [@NicolasPetton](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/NicolasPetton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2021, 2:26pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/3 "2021-02-22T14:26:11Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > Regarding performance, having optimized the org-id code myself, it is possible to make it fast. But all is relative I suppose. Have you done any profiling? No, I haven’t. I will if performance actually becomes a problem 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/gustav/32/511_2.png) [@Gustav](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2021, 10:10pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/4 "2021-02-22T22:10:57Z")
Okay, tried it out. Great work! Visually it is much more attractive than having a separate buffer. Also, having this as an add-on kind of leaves us with both options. Perfect 🙂 Some notes on the implementation. 1. I would personally let `nroam--crawl-source` just write to a temporary or hidden buffer for the backlink-content instead of opening up each and every file. 2. It seems the inserted backlinks makes the buffer status become modified. Slightly annoying. In fact, I did try to change the code for (1) above and it makes the backlinks-section creation near instantaneous. And it won’t create buffers for all the linked references up front either. Not sure if my test is something you’d implement straight of the bat. But you can get the patch if you want to have a look! ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/gustav/32/511_2.png) [@Gustav](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2021, 10:25pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/5 "2021-02-22T22:25:40Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > It seems the inserted backlinks makes the buffer status become modified. Slightly annoying. I have to take this back. Maybe a temporary glitch, seems to work fine now. 👍 ---
**Author:** ![NicolasPetton](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/nicolaspetton/32/663_2.png) [@NicolasPetton](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/NicolasPetton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2021, 8:03am UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/6 "2021-02-23T08:03:43Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > In fact, I did try to change the code for (1) above and it makes the backlinks-section creation near instantaneous. And it won’t create buffers for all the linked references up front either. Not sure if my test is something you’d implement straight of the bat. But you can get the patch if you want to have a look! If you’d like to open a PR, I’d be happy to discuss this on GitHub! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![konubinix](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/konubinix/32/519_2.png) [@konubinix](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/konubinix)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2021, 1:00pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/7 "2021-02-23T13:00:35Z")
I just tried it. I love the idea :-). I would have used the same function that populates org-roam instead of rewriting it, calling (run-hooks 'org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook). Why did you feel the need to rewrite it? Actually, I do something similar when exporting my braindump ([Devel/KONIX\_org-roam-export.el at master · Konubinix/Devel · GitHub](https://github.com/Konubinix/Devel/blob/master/elfiles/KONIX_org-roam-export.el#L202)), using org-roam–get-backlinks also, and know I regret since I don’t have the bibtex integration and ref backlinks. Anyway, it is a great idea and I definitely will try to use it :-). ---
**Author:** ![NicolasPetton](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/nicolaspetton/32/663_2.png) [@NicolasPetton](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/NicolasPetton)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2021, 5:25pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/8 "2021-02-24T17:25:07Z")
> [@konubinix](#): > > I would have used the same function that populates org-roam instead of > rewriting it, calling (run-hooks 'org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook). Why did > you feel the need to rewrite it? Unless I’m mistaken, `org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook` wouldn’t be a great fit for nroam, as the backlinks sections need to be added after saving a file, and removed prior to saving. ---
**Author:** ![konubinix](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/konubinix/32/519_2.png) [@konubinix](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/konubinix)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2021, 1:04pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/9 "2021-02-25T13:04:09Z")
Nicolas Petton via Org-roam [orgroam@discoursemail.com](mailto:orgroam@discoursemail.com) writes: > > [@konubinix](#): > > > > I would have used the same function that populates org-roam instead of > > rewriting it, calling (run-hooks 'org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook). Why did > > you feel the need to rewrite it? > > Unless I’m mistaken, `org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook` wouldn’t be a great fit for nroam, as the backlinks sections need to be added after saving a file, and removed prior to saving. I’m sorry I don’t understand what you mean. As far as I can tell, nroam–insert-backlinks gets the backlinks from org-roam–get-backlinks and insert them with the help of the insert emacs function. By looking at the code of the hooks in org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook, I see they do exactly the same. More precisely, nroam–insert-backlinks looks a lot like org-roam-buffer–insert-backlinks to me. The good point of being able to reuses the methods that fill the backlink buffer is that you would take advantage of the bug fixes and new features. For instance, currently, org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook contains org-roam-buffer–insert-title, org-roam-buffer–insert-backlinks and org-roam-buffer–insert-ref-links. You could drop the org-roam-buffer–insert-title part as I guess putting the links at the bottom of the page would need another kind of title. Then you have org-roam-buffer–insert-backlinks, doing (IIUC) the same as nroam–insert-backlinks and also org-roam-buffer–insert-ref-links doing something more than nroam. You could re implement org-roam-buffer–insert-ref-links in nroam, but I feel that this is not DRY and you’d need to implement whatever put in org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook. Plus, I assume that org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook is meant to be customized by people or extension to customize the org-roam buffer. It would be great if that customization would be part of nroam also. I tried replacing (seq-do #'nroam–insert-backlink-group groups) with (run-hooks 'org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook) in nroam–insert-backlinks and I can see the content of the roam buffer instead of the content generated by nroam. They look a lot alike to me. ![2021-02-25T13-59-21-01-00.png](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/orgroam/original/1X/70a2f85620e7dc3c6a84875aded613ba756a6685.png) ![2021-02-25T13-59-48-01-00.png](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/orgroam/original/1X/0b8fda689459587c92c4057f3b86a36cd90daa2f.png) ---
**Author:** ![konubinix](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/konubinix/32/519_2.png) [@konubinix](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/konubinix)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2021, 1:05pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/10 "2021-02-25T13:05:43Z")
Sorry if my answers are poorly formatted, I am new in discourse and using the mailing list mode. The last part of my message was cut, it was: Of course, this is not functional as is, because (run-hooks 'org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook) needs to set some things up before being called, and as you can see, I get the title of the org-roam-buffer as well as the title of nroam. But I truly believe it is the « correct » path to take: trying to use the same mechanism in nroam and org-roam-buffer. My best, and thanks for the great idea of nroam. ---
**Author:** ![nobiot](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/nobiot/32/159_2.png) [@nobiot](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/nobiot)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2021, 1:30pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/11 "2021-02-25T13:30:36Z")
By the looks of it, Nroam avoids the backlink section in the note to be saved to the file. This is done with `before-save` and `after-save` hooks. `org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook` might be able to insert the backlink section, but I don’t think it can be used to remove the section just before `save-buffer` to avoid the section to be saved in the file. I think that’s what @NicolasPetton is saying. @konubinix It seems that you are saying something at a different level, but perhaps it was not clear (not exactly clear to me, at least). ---
**Author:** ![NicolasPetton](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/nicolaspetton/32/663_2.png) [@NicolasPetton](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/NicolasPetton)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2021, 5:25pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/12 "2021-02-25T17:25:39Z")
> [@konubinix](#): > > They look a lot alike to me. The key difference is in how backlinks are rendered. In nroam the entire subtree get inserted, that’s the reason why I re-implemented it in nroam. ---
**Author:** ![NicolasPetton](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/nicolaspetton/32/663_2.png) [@NicolasPetton](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/NicolasPetton)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2021, 5:32pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/13 "2021-02-25T17:32:06Z")
> [@konubinix](#): > > But I truly believe it is the « correct » path to take: trying to use > the same mechanism in nroam and org-roam-buffer. Unless org-roam in the future takes the approach of displaying the entire subtree of each backlink, I disagree. Consider the following screenshot from nroam: ![2021-02-25-183021](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/orgroam/original/1X/440b41786e157b93230686475dc4d1bc0709cfb4.png) ---
**Author:** ![NicolasPetton](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/nicolaspetton/32/663_2.png) [@NicolasPetton](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/NicolasPetton)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2021, 5:33pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/14 "2021-02-25T17:33:58Z")
Versus the same backlinks from org-roam: ![2021-02-25-183036](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/orgroam/original/1X/17ebbe83ef8a56c95479ad4764f16bd5678e568e.png) ---
**Author:** ![konubinix](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/konubinix/32/519_2.png) [@konubinix](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/konubinix)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2021, 9:09am UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/15 "2021-02-26T09:09:43Z")
nobiot via Org-roam [orgroam@discoursemail.com](mailto:orgroam@discoursemail.com) writes: > By the looks of it, Nroam avoids the backlink section in the note to be saved to the file. This is done with `before-save` and `after-save` hooks. `org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook` might be able to insert the backlink section, but I don’t think it can be used to remove the section just before `save-buffer` to avoid the section to be saved in the file. I think that’s what @NicolasPetton is saying. > > @konubinix > It seems that you are saying something at a different level, but perhaps it was not clear (not exactly clear to me, at least). I agree that there are 2 dimensions in this conversation. Actually, I can see 3 dimensions. 1. nroam plays nicely with the saving mechanism to avoid saving the added content to the file 2. nroam generate different content than org-roam 3. nroam generate the content at the bottom of the buffer instead of in a side window About 1., I did not take a close look at how it does this, but whatever content you insert, nroam makes sure it won’t be saved. For instance, I replace (seq-do #'nroam–insert-backlink-group groups) by (insert “test”) in nroam–insert-backlinks and got “test” inserted instead of the backlinks. Replacing it with (run-hooks org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook), it get the content of the org-roam buffer and still the content is not saved in the file. About 2. according to the other answer from @NicolasPetton, I understand that there is a divergence of opinions. While org-roam only show few information about the backlink, nroam shows the whole subtree. I understand and respect that decision. My point is more that I believe that 2 and 3 are independent. I think that whatever the content generated, some people might prefer to have it in org-roam buffer and other people in the bottom of the buffer. But I don’t think that those people might want different content depending on the use case. For instance, I like: - the way nroam generate the backlinks - the fact that org-roam generates ref links - the generation of those in the bottom of the buffer But some people might prefer for instance nroam styled backlinks in the org-roam buffer. I don’t see why it would not be technically feasible, even though I understand the argument that we don’t have time to write the code to do this. In conclusion, I think that ideally, nroam and org-roam could have the same basis to fill the backlink section. I assumed org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook was a good candidate, but I’m likely to be wrong. Using this common basis, one user could decide what content to put in the backlink section according to their preferences, like (setq org-roam-buffer-prepare-hook '(nroam-insert-title nroam-insert-backlinks org-roam-buffer–insert-ref-links)). Then, the user would decide to put this content in the org-roam buffer with M-x org-roam or at the bottom of the buffer with M-x nroam-mode. I hope it is clearer now. Again, I’m just sharing my thoughts and totally don’t ask for anything. ---
**Author:** ![JacksLackOfSurprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/91b2a8/32.png) [@JacksLackOfSurprise](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/JacksLackOfSurprise)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2021, 3:15pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/16 "2021-10-21T15:15:29Z")
This is awesome, makes it more like Roam Research or logseq ---
**Author:** ![gusgustavsohn](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/org-roam.discourse.group/gusgustavsohn/32/1189_2.png) [@gusgustavsohn](https://org-roam.discourse.group/u/gusgustavsohn)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2024, 6:16pm UTC](https://org-roam.discourse.group/t/nroam-org-roam-backlinks-within-org-mode-buffers/1306/17 "2024-02-15T18:16:58Z")
Sorry for bumping this old thread but I have to ask: does this work for org-roam v2? I love the idea of having that info show in the buffer itself. Does anyone know a similar initiative for org-roam v2? Thanks in advance.