I think it's simple. If the projects compile for a given branch, there
is no need to pull them out. And even if they don't compile for a
while - which didn't happen that much as I'm generally playing the
cleanup guy after API breaks -; as long as the Wicket branch they are
written for doesn't approach release mode yet, all is fine. Whether
core members think the projects are good or not is completely
irrelevant in the scope of these projects.
The projects that were part of the discussion compiled fine, had
plenty of JavaDocs explaining the uses, and even were part of one of
the most extensive examples we had: cdapp in wicket-stuff. And they
used Hibernate 2.2 ga, which is not the latest, but not ancient
either. The main reason for me wanting to keep the projects was
because of cdapp in wicket-contrib-examples. I still think it's a nice
example, and as no-one rewrote it for e.g. databinder or took some
action to improve the projects, I thought they were fine being there.
The reason why there was no project documentation on the wicket-wiki
yet is easy as well: I just didn't get around doing it yet because I
have too much other stuff on my plate (and also forgot about it I
guess).
Eelco
On 5/6/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
