Hi Ernesto, I personally can file issues to your projects, send pull requests, etc. but I cannot judge whether your project is good enough to be a "satellite" project. Such "satellite" projects should prove themselves naturally. They have to build their community, they have to provide communication channels for their users, etc. WicketStuff indeed contains projects with different quality. The benefit of being part of WS is that the project is released regularly and that its issues/pull requests can be processed by another contributor in WS.
What we can do is to add links to related projects at http://wicket.apache.org with a description, links to their main site, mailing lists, issue trackers, ... For example in http://wicket.apache.org/learn/projects/ If you like the idea then checkout the site files from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket/common/site/trunk and send us a patch On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > My personal experience is like Martin Sachs' one. > > So far the projects I was working on never used the pre-build rich > > components because they didn't fit the "company standards" either because > > of the used technology or because of the UI mismatch. > > > > But for other companies having an "official" set of rich components, that > could be easily customized to satisfy not so strict standards, would be a > great plus. Mind that I write "official" meaning by that that they do not > need to be hosted or maintained by core wicket developers but on > a satellite project that is "mentored" by core developers and that follows > the same release schedules that wicket does. The closest thing to that now > is wicket-stuff. But IMHO that project is too open and there are projects > of many different quality levels hosted under the same "umbrella". So, IMO > a satellite project, where successful-well-maintained-mature projects would > be invited to join in, is needed and it will be welcomed by the community. > > > > I think the current YUI datetime component needs a change because: > > - it uses YUI 2.x which is no more supported > > - Wicket comes with jQuery by default and using YUI for a widget just > > contributes to the slower responses > > > > Why I think Apache Wicket doesn't need its own date component ? > > Because there are several out there already (wiquery, wicket-jquery-ui, > > wicket-bootstrap, jqwicket, jwicket, ....) > > > > Not needed to "pollute" core... if some of those projects are invite to > join satellite project. > > > > Maybe we should adopt some of those ? > > If we decide to do that then we have to invite their developers too > because > > at the moment we have no resources to maintain it ourselves. > > Few months ago I was in favour of jQueryUI, lately I like Twitter Bootstrap > > more and more, and I'm not sure what new fancy JS UI library will arise > > next year, that's why I think Wicket should not provide "default" UI > > widgets by itself. The above listed libraries do this good enough. Some > > users prefer WiQuery, other - Wicket Bootstrap, third prefer to make > their > > own components ... > > > > > No need to discard anything useful and good quality.... > > > -- > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > Antilia Soft > http://antiliasoft.com/ <http://antiliasoft.com/antilia> > -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com <http://jweekend.com/>
