jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brian Thompson" <elephant...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Jackrabbit is dead (for us)
Date Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:42:31 GMT
Gee, did the Jackrabbit community have some vested interest in
legisway.comusing Jackrabbit as a repository for their current
project? Was there a
competition or something?  I wish someone had told me!

Also, since when is Jackrabbit classified as a CMS?  Everything I've read
suggests that Jackrabbit is a *repository*, not a full CMS.

That said, I tend to agree that some of Jackrabbit's current limitations are
vexing.  It would be REALLY nice if Jackrabbit supported editing node types
the way DBMSs support editing of table definitions.

However, it's also important to recognize the hard work that has gone into
making Jackrabbit a great technology.  As Bertrand noted, a bit of respect
would be appreciated.  Also, if Jackrabbit's current limitations cause
problems for you, why not develop patches for those limitations?  You'll
spend less development time and effort customizing Jackrabbit (or another
well-supported open source project) than in developing your own custom
repository and CMS.

-Brian


On 7/6/07, Frédéric Esnault <fesn@legisway.com> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
>
>
> I'm sorry to inform you that we did not select Jackrabbit as the CMS of
> the platform we're currently developing (well designing right now).
>
> We'll develop our own CMS, of course not generic as Jackrabbit could be
> (and this is to be discussed...), but more suitable to our needs.
>
>
>
> Why we rejected Jackrabbit :
>
> -          lack of administration possibilities: It is currently
> impossible in JR to modify an existing node type, to add/modify/remove
> properties. Refactoring is important for us, and impossible in Jackrabbit.
>
> -          Strong constraints on the repository structure : we saw in the
> different mailing lists that Jackrabbit works (quite) well with a specific
> architecture, and that not following it induces very important and
> unacceptable performance loss (both for writing and searching);
>
> -          Search is also a (very) important feature for us, and currently
> Jackrabbit is much too limited in this area. SQL is not complete (well we
> don't need full SQL, but at least....joins...); and xpath is limited also,
> dereferencing is impossible or must be developed as an upper layer above
> Jackrabbit.
>
>
>
> Some details also maybe, but most important problems are the three listed
> above (admin, repository structure and search). I think Jackrabbit is good
> to create a blogging system, a forum or any article-based simple website,
> but it is definitely not suitable for professional, generic CMS. This is too
> bad, because some (who said most?) apache projects are really top quality
> projects that even professional softwares can rely on, and I thought
> Jackrabbit would follow this path. I agree that it's still a young project,
> maybe versions 2.5 or 3.0 will begin be mature enough, and powerful enough
> for demanding systems to rely on Jackrabbit.
>
>
>
> Thanks anyway for all your good and detailed answers ;-)
>
>
>
> Frederic Esnault
>
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message