[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       jetspeed-user
Subject:    RE: Other Open Source Portals
From:       "Weaver, Scott" <Sweaver () rippe ! com>
Date:       2003-10-28 17:43:33
[Download RAW message or body]


As Andy has already stated, beware anyone saying they are 168 compliant already (save \
for actual vendors like IBM and SUN).  It's just too soon for anyone to have a full \
implementation.  The only reason why Pluto is 168 compliant and J2 (because of the \
Pluto dependency) is that Pluto started way before the spec was published as it was \
the RI for the spec.

Also watch out for eXo portal, it is GPL, which can be hairy for java developers in \
terms of legal issues.

p.s.

If you start out using Pluto's driver portal, you will be able to easily migrate all \
of your portlet apps to Jetspeed 2 when it is ready for prime time, if that is even a \
concern of yours.

Regards,
*================================* 
> Scott T Weaver                 |
> <weaver@apache.org>            | 
> Apache Jetspeed Portal Project |
> Apache Pluto Portlet Container |
*================================*

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Pruitt [mailto:apruitt@coghillcapital.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:54 PM
> To: Jetspeed Users List
> Subject: RE: Other Open Source Portals
> 
> > 
> > I have looked at the current beta version of Jetspeed,  and
> > for a variety of reasons have determine that it is not the
> > open source portal framework that I need to go with for a new
> > project I have been assigned to.  I think 2.0 would be
> > excellent, but I am unable to wait until 1st quarter 2004, as
> > I have to have something out the door by early Jan 2004.  I
> > am in the process of evaluating Liferay, which is a 168
> > compliant open source portal based on Hypersonic and Struts.
> > The down side is that it is almost all EJB based.
> 
> Although Liferay is not in fact Hypersonic based, it is also
> not fully 168 compliant.  In particular, it doesn't handle
> portlet applications (deployed as a separate WAR file).  I
> suspect that there are a large number of other
> not-yet-compliant aspects to liferay.
> 
> 
> > 
> > I have to make a decision soon as to which framework we will
> > use on our new project.  So I thought I would ask if there
> > are any other JSR 168 compliant open source portals out there
> > that people are familiar with.  I have not yet looked at
> > Pluto, but I understand it is just a framework by which you
> > can build your own portal from.  I would prefer to utilize an
> 
> If you need a light weight portal implementation, that doesn't
> have a lot of services etc, portalImpl (the pluto driver) may
> be worth a look.  You'll be on your own, as it is essentially
> unsupported by the jetspeed/pluto community, but it is a large
> enough piece of portal to save you some time and get you started.
> 
> 
> > open source portal that already has some implementation built
> > in for logging, roles, groups, users, etc, as we are on a
> > very short time frame.  Is anyone else out there aware of any
> > other 168 compliant open source portals I should look at?  To
> > date, Jetspeed and Liferay are the only two that I have
> > found, and Liferay is the only stable product that I found
> > out there at this time.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance for any advice/recommendations offered.
> > 
> > Celeste Haseltine, PE
> > J2EE Architect
> > 972-512-5103
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-user-help@jakarta.apache.org



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]