jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christophe Lombart" <christophe.lomb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Alfresco + Jackrabbit
Date Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:33:37 GMT
Another interesting comparaison is certainly the licence term which is
not very clear for the Alfresco product (at least for myself).

On 10/9/06, Serge Huber <shuber2@jahia.com> wrote:
> Well I looked at Alfresco a while back but for me the main difference
> was at the time :
> - Nodes in Alfresco seem more file-oriented (basically it's mostly
> configured for that type of usage)
> - Nodes in Jackrabbit are quite general
> But the two implementations are quite similar, except that Jackrabbit
> has decoupled the persistence implementation in a way that makes it easy
> to choose a back-end fitting your deployment. On the other hand Alfresco
> is database oriented, which will help with some issues such as
> transaction management, clustering, etc.
> Of course this is a very summarized view of the two technologies. There
> is a lot more to both, but it is not clear to me that one or the other
> would better fitted for large hierarchical data.
> One thing I have noted is that Alfreso is in full buzz mode right now :)
> So it would be nice to have a real-world comparison of the two techs. It
> seems to me that Alfresco is more EDM oriented than Jackrabbit though in
> terms of a product.
> And last time I did performance comparisons, nothing could beat
> Jackrabbit in terms of indexing speed, and the possibility to use
> file-based persistence was a interesting choice for "lighter"
> configurations that still need speed.
> For me the big issue with Jackrabbit is to scale it to really large
> datasets. I'd love to be able to say that Jackrabbit can scale to a
> cluster of 10-20 machines in cluster and managed hierarchical data of 20
> million nodes amounting to 100TB of data :)
> Regards,
>   Serge...
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 10/9/06, Alexandru Popescu <the.mindstorm.mailinglist@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Other than this, I guess it may be oke to have different solutions for
> >> this spec implementation (in case you are referring to this).
> >
> > +1 In fact I'd be very interested in seeing some comparisons on the
> > various aspects of the different JCR implementations. There's a lot to
> > be learned from different approaches to the same problem.
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Jukka Zitting
> >

Best regards,


View raw message