Recommending Oak over Jackrabbit 2.x

[Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>]

Hi,

Recent questions to the jackrabbit user's list lead me to believe that
users are still picking Jackrabbit 2.x as a first implementation
choice. I believe that we should be pointing them to Oak instead, as
that's (IMO) the better documented, supported and implemented version
of a JCR repository.

I haven't sketched out what needs to be changed in the docs, as I'd
like to get your thoughts on this first.

Thanks,

Robert

Re: Recommending Oak over Jackrabbit 2.x

[Alexander Klimetschek <ak...@adobe.com.INVALID>]

I agree that Oak should be the first choice for newcomers, since it is more performant and scalable, and so much work went into it.

Only use Jackrabbit 2.x if you must use the features that Oak does not implement, and if the scale of your use case works fine with JR 2.x.

I believe the confusion is just a matter of separate websites & repositories etc. Which was a deliberate choice IIRC because JR 2.x had to stay around as the reference implementation for the JCR spec.

Cheers,
Alex

> On 09.06.2018, at 03:34, Roy Teeuwen <ro...@teeuwen.be> wrote:
> 
> What ever happend to this question? Still find it valid
> 
>> On 27 Feb 2018, at 21:15, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 12:21 -0500, Matt Ryan wrote:
>>> Are there use cases where users should prefer Jackrabbit over Oak? 
>>> Or is
>>> Oak considered a full replacement for Jackrabbit in every case?
>> 
>> My understanding is that Jackrabbit is a reference implementation of
>> the spec, with all bells and whistles, while Oak does not implement the
>> parts that are tricky to get done in a performant way, e.g.
>> EventJournal or multiple workspaces.
>> 
>> Robert
> 

Re: Recommending Oak over Jackrabbit 2.x

[Roy Teeuwen <ro...@teeuwen.be>]

What ever happend to this question? Still find it valid

> On 27 Feb 2018, at 21:15, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 12:21 -0500, Matt Ryan wrote:
>> Are there use cases where users should prefer Jackrabbit over Oak? 
>> Or is
>> Oak considered a full replacement for Jackrabbit in every case?
> 
> My understanding is that Jackrabbit is a reference implementation of
> the spec, with all bells and whistles, while Oak does not implement the
> parts that are tricky to get done in a performant way, e.g.
> EventJournal or multiple workspaces.
> 
> Robert

Re: Recommending Oak over Jackrabbit 2.x

[Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>]

On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 12:21 -0500, Matt Ryan wrote:
> Are there use cases where users should prefer Jackrabbit over Oak? 
> Or is
> Oak considered a full replacement for Jackrabbit in every case?

My understanding is that Jackrabbit is a reference implementation of
the spec, with all bells and whistles, while Oak does not implement the
parts that are tricky to get done in a performant way, e.g.
EventJournal or multiple workspaces.

Robert

Re: Recommending Oak over Jackrabbit 2.x

[Matt Ryan <os...@mvryan.org>]

Interesting.

Are there use cases where users should prefer Jackrabbit over Oak?  Or is
Oak considered a full replacement for Jackrabbit in every case?


-MR


On February 27, 2018 at 8:53:53 AM, Robert Munteanu (rombert@apache.org)
wrote:

Hi,

Recent questions to the jackrabbit user's list lead me to believe that
users are still picking Jackrabbit 2.x as a first implementation
choice. I believe that we should be pointing them to Oak instead, as
that's (IMO) the better documented, supported and implemented version
of a JCR repository.

I haven't sketched out what needs to be changed in the docs, as I'd
like to get your thoughts on this first.

Thanks,

Robert