Ouch. On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Flavel Heyman <[email protected] > wrote:
> After spending a decent chunk of time in Jackrabbit, there is about no gap > that Jackrabbit fills. > > There are about 1.5 reasons I can think of using Jackrabbit. > 1. You use a system that is pre-built already using Jackrabbit (CQ5/AEM, > Liferay, Š) > 2. You really really want a folder hierarchy. > (I say #2 as .5 because I believe tagging fills this need, so who cares > about folders?) > > The other things Jackrabbit brings to the table like versioning, locking, > restrictions > can be implemented in very little time from scratch. In fact if you are > implementing all 3 it takes less time > to do it from scratch than it would to do it in Jackrabbit because the > order in which you do the above things together matters. > > Obviously you have to use Jackrabbit Oak to get ³real" performance, going > with plain Jackrabbit will leave out a lot of the > the indexing performance enhancements. > > On 9/9/15, 10:07 AM, "Adrian Luna" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >I am new to Jackrabbit but have some experience with Search Engines and > >lately with Elasticsearch. I can see the advantages of Elasticsearch over > >Jackrabbit because of its distributed style. However, I think I don't > >completely understand the picture and the space that Jackrabbit fills in > >the world of technical solutions, because I can't figure out in which > >situation could Jackrabbit be used instead of Elasticsearch. > >Maybe because of my knowledge of Elasticsearch I tend to use it even > >forcing it for systems where it's not designed for, so I would like to > >understand the whole picture and maybe work with Jackrabbit to include it > >into my skillset. > > > >I can imagine some of the issues could be support of a lot of document > >types or observation, but still those are things that are implementable > >using Elasticsearch maybe together with Apache Tika or simlar libraries. > > > >As I said, I just came up to Jackrabbit today, so my knowledge is very > >limited, so don't be too harsh on me if the question is as simple as it > >seems to be. > > -- Regards, Mike
