As much as I hate to say it, just like with the book idea, the Tapestry ecosystem isn't big enough to have an 'endorsed by' program or any kind of certification. Wish it wasn't so but it is.
For example, let's take CDI support. There are at least 3 implementations, with equal quality as far as I know. Who is going to be the judge which one gets the stamp of approval? PMC? All committers? Users of the list? Do you think all three should get approval? Do you think people are actually going to take a look at all the modules, really take a look at them for quality? I really don't see this as sustainable long term. The problem here is more systemic. There is not enough cooperation in the Tapestry world. There are not enough active committers. Even many 3rd party modules are very duplicative because their owners want 'their' code 'pure' and not 'contaminate / dump' other's people's perceived 'inferior' code into their projects. The solution here is more cooperation and less 'certification' Thiago, as far as your own modules, I think you are doing great work, and you should put 'Tapestry Committer and PMC member' with your modules. (at least I think you are :) That should carry more than enough weight with people. On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote: > Hi! > > There's an interesting discussion between me and Pieter in > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-64. The gist of it is that he > wants portlets support in Tapestry, there's tapestry5-portlets, which is > written by at least two Tapestry committers, but the consensus here is to not > add more modules to the Tapestry project itself due to the time to support > it. His argument, and I kind of agree with him, is that having > tapestry5-portlets in the Tapestry project is a seal of quality for the > portlet support. > > I propose a compromise: in the Tapestry documentation site, a page containing > third-party Tapestry and Tapestry-IoC modules which the Tapestry team > recommends due to their proven quality. For example, tapestry-security is > written by Kalle Korhonen, which is both a Tapestry and Shiro committer. Or > tapestry-url-rewriter, written by me and Robert Zeigler and not in Tapestry > itself anymore. For a given module to be listed there, I suggest that we > carry a vote just like we do with new committers. In addition, we could have > a page in the Tapestry documentation with some documentation. > > What do you guys think? > > Cheers! > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer > http://machina.com.br > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
