jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert r. Sanders" <robert.sand...@ipov.net>
Subject Re: Alfresco + Jackrabbit
Date Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:43:47 GMT
Actually one thing that I find really interesting about Alfresco - in 
case anyone wants to implement it as an add-on to Jackrabbit - is the 
CIFS layer which supposedly allows good access to the server (as a 
document server) from Windows clients.  Having tried mapping a WeDAV 
location as a network drive I can say that it really doesn't work in a 
usable fashion.  I would imagine that using the jCIFS library it would 
be possible to write something similar for a more generic JSR-170 

Christophe Lombart wrote:
> 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
>> >

    Robert r. Sanders
    Chief Technologist
    (334) 821-5412

View raw message