TheServerSide.com is working on revising the reviews section of the site, and part of that is formalizing a policy on what should be reviewed, and by whom. Since this is a site meant to serve the community, we'd love to have your input. What is appropriate for reviews? It's pretty simple: software, books, and hardware, preferably in that order. Each of them deserves some explanation. Software being reviewed needs to fulfill a test for direct relevance: servers, software packages written in java, or FOR Java. Games probably aren't in unless they somehow factor into relevant enterprise topics. (Let's be real: they don't.) Books on technology that relates to Enterprise Java are eligible for review. Books that cover topics that Enterprise Java addresses are also appropriate: the Dragon Book, for example, would work, as would books on algorithms or patterns, or grids, as well as - possibly - books on hardware architectures such as those covering networking. What about competing technologies? For example, a book on Ruby, or a software package in PHP... Would this be acceptable, if the book highlighted something in Java that could be improved or provided a contrast to Java in some way? Hardware reviews are a little trickier. We won't accept a review of any hardware that doesn't provide a direct relevant service to our readers, whether as a deployment platform, a development platform, or some other tool. In other words, headphones would be out. So would game pads. However, a J2ME phone might be eligible, as would a server platform, a keyboard, or possibly a storage device. There's a fine line here, and TSS would love your input. When should something be reviewed? As soon as it's stable and a review can be justifiably offered. Widely available betas are certainly candidates for review, as well as stable prereleases of commercial software - as long as the prerelease isn't going to change. Who should write the review? Preferably someone with professional qualifications on the subject at hand: deployment tools should be reviewed by someone who has experience deploying, IDEs should be reviewed by those who use them, etc. Software authors or employees of publishers should probably not do reviews. A reviewer's qualifications should be part of the review (see below). What information should go into a review?

1. Cost
2. Availability/License
3. What it's for
4. Who it's for
5. Who wrote it
6. Good points, if any
7. Bad points, if any
8. Community support, if any
9. Reviewer's professional qualifications

How will the reviews be titled? Here are some sample review titles, with entirely made up revisions and with no relevance whatsoever to actual content:

• Book:JavaServer Faces, Schalk/Burns, 2006
• AppServer: Oracle OC4J 10.1.3.1
• Software: TestNG 1.01 (Testing)
• Database: Derby 10.0.1.3
• Hardware: Sun T1000 (8 cores, 6GB RAM)
• Hardware: Apple Macintosh Pro model.number.here (2GB RAM, 60GB HD)
• Hardware: 1GB Fujimitsu Flash drive

Is this enough data? What do you think the titles should look like, considering all of the reviews will be presented in one list for easy reference?

Books on "competing technologies" in the enterprise area can always be usefull. They might be marked like this "[book ruby]..." In the Java area books on any programming technique can teach or coach developers new tricks When should something be reviewed? Add "when deployed ... in the sense of "lessons learned"

You should increase the video on web based development. They should not be just put on stream rather they should be allowed to download. All Videos of Ed Roman,which were once kept for downloading, are no more downloadable.

Incidentally, we're in the process of collecting reviews now, so if you're interested in reviewing something, feel free to send me what you have. (email address: jottinger at techtarget dot com)

I'm not a big fan of reviews of alternate technologies. I mean, it's one thing for, say, Spring vs JEE, as those are both implicitly Java, as well as enterprise but are alternate technologies. But "Spring for Ruby" (contrived example) would make no sense, IMHO. Now, if it's a more generic work, that just happens to use some other technology, then that gets a little grayer. For example, I have a book on MDD that uses .NET for its examples and case study (damned if I could recall the name, though). It's really a book on MDD, and basically spends no time whatsoever on .NET, simply using C# for its code samples. That's a borderline book that might be relevant to Java programmers, just like any of Fowlers books would be relevant -- whether they used Java or not. But something like "MDD Using Ruby" that's more about MDD leveraging Ruby features, that's not so relevant here I don't think. Particularly if it spends much (if any) time focusing on Ruby specific features that can be leveraged for MDD. Is it an MDD book using Ruby, or a Ruby book using MDD. That's the kind of distinction I'm thinking about. Now, of course, just to stir the pot up some more, if there's some consensus that a "MDD Using Ruby" just happens to be a spectacular MDD book, "just skip the Ruby stuff", then maybe it should show up in that sense. But "Web Apps using PHP" has no place here IMHO. "Perl Cookbook", "Using MySQL with Turbo Pascal". Nope. Nada. As far as hardware, I think that should VERY Java specific. For example, the "Flash Drive" review is a waste of space. I'd even argue the Mac Pro review would be also. Reviewing Java on the Mac (regardless of model), THAT'S relevant, but not the machine itself. Perhaps a "JBoss shootout between WinXP and Mac OS X" would be relevant to show how Mac OS X rates as a runtime platform using the XServe. I'd rather see a T1000 review in the context of running application servers or what not more than anything else. I can go other places to tell me how much power it uses or what SPEC times it runs and stuff. So, I'd want a solid Java Enterpise context for hardware reviews. I don't come here for generic computer and programming information.

I know the chances on this are about 0.1% but I figure it can't hurt to ask. What about humors items that are nerd centered? Like the film at http://www.windwardreports.com/film.htm. I would love to see more things like this. thanks - dave