Chronological, newest at the top seems the best choice, but there is a
subtle difference in whether you consider the launch date of the site, or
the date in which the site was added to your catalog of Wicket sites.
Date of adding is better so you know what sites you haven't looked at
yet, and should be the default IMHO, but having a choice of sorting by
launch date would be nice also.
Cheers,
Daniel
jWeekend wrote:
>
> .....
> One question that came up is whether the pages listed by URL there
> should be ordered alphabetically or chronologically.
>
> For me, chronological (newest at top, as had been the case originally)
> makes much more sense because when I look at the site, I can see how
> things have evolved, quickly identify what's new since I last looked
> and also answer questions like "what were the first public Wicket
> sites listed here?". This is also a much more robust sorting scheme
> .....
> I doubt anyone else has ever been worried about this, but if
> anyone else has a view on it I'd be pleased to know about
> it and if there are some good reasons for alphabetically
> ordering too the list that I have missed I can stop messing up
> Ralf's order!
>
> Regards - Cemal
> jWeekend
> OO & Java Technologies, Wicket Training and Development
> http://jWeekend.com
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-WIKI--%22Websites-based-on-Wicket%22-page-presentation-tp25880274p25880736.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
