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
What ever happend to this question? Still find it valid
> On 27 Feb 2018, at 21:15, Robert Munteanu 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 i
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 whis
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 (romb...@apache.org)
wrote:
Hi,
Recent questions to the jackrabbit user's list lead m
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
