On 5/6/07, Ryan Sonnek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a wicket-stuff developer, I for one would hate to see restrictions
placed on what can or can not be a wicket-stuff project.
This was not a thread on what constitutes a wicket stuff project, but
now that you brought it up :)
In my vision, there is no restriction (bar the things sf.net policies
and good taste prohibit) on what can be a Wicket Stuff project.
The beauty
of the wicket-stuff idea is that it is a playground for people try out
potentially cool ideas. It's a place for people to learn how to use
wicket and build "possibly" cool widgets and tools.
Yes, but we should be able to keep it clean/real, in that the SVN
trunk does not end up as a dumping ground for dead projects and broken
ideas.
I would like the projects to be maintained (not as vigorously as
wicket core is, but at least migrate with each release of Wicket, and
get a download from either the maven repository or the sf.net download
area).
As such, I think the minimal requirements for a Wicket contrib project would be:
- a page in the wicketstuff wiki explaining:
* what the project does
* who is maintaining it
* the intent of the project (example, actual usage, experiment, ?)
- if the intent is actual usage: a release with at least each major
wicket release
- if the intent is example or experiment: description on how to get
it and start with it
I am in doubt on what to do with projects that don't get maintained:
- letting them sit -> gives a bad experience for users trying the
projects out (see maven), but allows new users to pick up the code and
do something with it
- removing them/moving to attic -> makes the projects invisible and
virtually annihilates the opportunity of someone else picking the
project up
If a project that has been in limbo for a while has a viable
alternative, I would opt to remove the dead project. If there is no
alternative, I would opt to keep it.
I know that *my* project (wicketstuff-scriptaculous) has occasionally
been left "in the dark" for several months before a whole slew of
changes and features get built in.
The scriptaculous project is actively maintained in my book: regular
code additions, blog entries, etc. and would be an example for other
projects. Thanks for that!
Sure, there may be a "better" wicket/hibernate project out there (aka:
databinder), but I really don't see any issues with that. Especially
now that there's a wicket-stuff wiki, it can be clearly spelled out
there what each project's strengths/weaknesses are.
But that was not even available for these projects. That prompted me
to ask if these are actively maintained and what we should do with
them. *Only* if they were not maintained I would want them be removed.
In this particular case, I would now only opt for removing the
distributables from the sf.net download site since these artifacts
don't have any value at the moment other than confusing new users.
Martijn
--
Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
