shouldn't it be one of igor's famous tables with the sort headers? then we wouldn't need to argue over how to order it.
jWeekend wrote: > > I've been having some very brief communication with Ralf Eichinger who > has been making a valuable contribution over the last few weeks by > starting to improve documentation on the Wiki, especially with a view > to help people evaluating Wicket get a fairer appreciation of it, > who's using it and what they are doing with it. > > Now obviously it is extremely valuable for newcomers to have a page > like our "Websites based on Wicket" [1] to get a feel for who's > doing what with Wicket already. And, for apps built on Wicket, like > "Leg Up" and all those other Wicket sites, it is nice to have a > central place to put a link on that others may come across and > therefore be aware it's out there, and enjoy visiting/using it. > It's also encouraging to see this list of apps and sites grows, > albeit steadily (I recommend anyone with a public Wicket app to > mention it there, it can only do good for all concerned, AFAICS). > All the same, there are increasingly more sophisticated and > impressive sites highlighting the strength and depth of the > community/developers and what magic can be weaved using Wicket > (whilst developers amongst us also know that in Wicket such magic > is possible at the same time as keeping your application design > and code neat, tidy, maintainable and extensible and even rather > pleasant to work with). > > 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 > (people _like_ to add their shiny new apps/sites to the top of the > list!) and with no arbitrary rules there's not such a likelihood of > breaking the sort order every time anyone adds their site (eg should > http://www.eropuit.nl go before or after fabulously40.com), as it was > when I went in to add LegUp. > > Chronological ordering is a scheme that was always quite naturally > maintained and therefore required no further maintenance to keep > right. What's more, I don't see what the benefit of an artificial > sort ordering like "alphabetically ordered by URL" would be in this > context as I doubt anyone looking at the page is not familiar with > Ctrl+F if they come looking for some specific page/site/URL. > > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-WIKI--%22Websites-based-on-Wicket%22-page-presentation-tp25880274p25884516.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
