On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 00:18 +0100, Ortwin Glück wrote: > Fellows, > > This issue (quoted below) is most unfortunate. I think we should > seriously think about establishing some basic rules for links to be > included in our list of "Applications". Right now there are none. > > Following are a few thoughts: > > What are the goals of this list? > The list is for people evaluating HttpClient: Seeing other projects > using HttpClient creates confidence. This is marketing for us. The list > is also a bit of advertisement for other projects: If they are listed > they get a higher Google page rank. The list is useful to developers: > They may find open source projects using HttpClient here and thus may > learn from their code how to best use HttpClient in different scenarios. > > This creates a problem with closed source projects: There is no way to > verify that they actually use HttpClient at all. Developers can not > learn from closed source code. Still the project gets a higher page > rank. That seems unfair to me. > > The size of the list also creates a problem: The human brain can not > deal with it. Developers looking for interesting projects get lost. It > is not obvious from the list if a project is "trivial" or "sophisticated". > > Personally I prefer a much shorter list with high quality entries. I > would like to propose some rules such as: > > A project qualifies for the list if all of the following conditions are met: > > * The project source code is available online (proves use, enables learning) > * The project source code where HttpClient is used has example quality > (excludes bad examples) > * HttpClient is an important part of the project (shortens list, > excludes uninteresting uses) > > The description of the entry should contain: > > * what does the software do > * what does HttpClient do in the software > * how and where (packages/classes) is HttpClient being used > > Please post your opinions. >
Odi, Quite frankly, I do not think we have resources to police the content of this page. We can't and we won't. Let us not even pretend that we do. We put this page together at the very beginning of my time with project when we felt HttpClient needed all promotion it could get. This is no longer the case. Still, we should not selectively remove projects from the list because we think they do not meet new criteria. We should either completely remove this page or keep it open to anyone who can produce a material evidence of using HttpClient (a reference on the web site, commons-httpclient.jar in the download bundle, source code). We should not require people to qualify for the privilege in my opinion. Oleg PS: What keeps you up so late? ;-) > Ortwin Glück > > Sam Berlin wrote: > > Err -- that wasn't actually spam. I asked Larry to add that section, > > based on the fact that Lucene had a "The following websites use > > Lucene", and he felt uncomfortable adding a website in a section that > > seemed most project-powered. > > > > Sam > > > > On 1/25/06, Ortwin Glück <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Nice try, spammer. > >> > >>Apache Wiki wrote: > >> > >>>+ > >>>+ The following websites use HttpClient. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
