aspose file tools*
The moose likes Portals and Portlets and the fly likes what's the deal with pluto and liferay? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Java » Portals and Portlets
Bookmark "what Watch "what New topic
Author

what's the deal with pluto and liferay?

Cameron Wallace McKenzie
author and cow tipper
Saloon Keeper

Joined: Aug 26, 2006
Posts: 4968
    
    1

i always thought Jetspeed was pretty much the standard when it came to portals. It's free, it works, it's pretty easy to use, and that's pretty much what you want in an open source/apache project.

So, why is everyone jumping on the Pluto/Liferay bandwagon. I'm not saying they're not good. I'm just wondering in which ways they are better. What are they doing to get so much attention, and take the spotlight away from Jetspeed.

Just looking for opinions.

-Cameron McKenzie
Gran Roguismo
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Posts: 77
From my limited knowledge of the subject thus far I would still say that Jetspeed is the real deal. Pluto is a reference implementation, and from my perspective merely around to test JSR168 compliant portlets. it's small, lightweight and requires nothing for installation. However it's lacking in robust features and really not intended for production use.


EOL
Dan Harth
Greenhorn

Joined: Jan 12, 2007
Posts: 9
I recent install LifeRay, Jetspeed2 (based on Pluto) and Jahia (based on Jetspeed with extras).

I've spent more time recently on Jetspeed2. This product is very raw in regards to the j2-admin portlet app. I believe this app is the most important one. I would have like to see a more complete Adminstration Portlet Application. Base features like... assign users to groups, or folders or portlets is not in install demo. The api i believe explains how to code this functionality but it would have been nice if these features were already coded to a degree?

Other than that, J2 looks good. IT needs lots of customization.

The others (Liferay & Jahia (Switzerland company)) are very polished products upon installation and running thru the portlets pages. I don't have enough experience with either. Note: Jahia might not really be open-source? It could cost on average $20K because it includes a CMS and workflow portlet application with it?

Let me know your experiences with theses products....
Cameron Wallace McKenzie
author and cow tipper
Saloon Keeper

Joined: Aug 26, 2006
Posts: 4968
    
    1

Thanks for the input.

I think I'm going to focus on JSF and Struts on JetSpeed2 for the next little while, and watch who starts gaining marketshare.

WebSphere Portal 7 looks really polished in comparison to the others, but then again, IBM has alot of dollars to throw at it.

-Cameron McKenzie
Dan Harth
Greenhorn

Joined: Jan 12, 2007
Posts: 9
I think BEA Portal is the Bentley of Web Portals in comparison to IBM, IMHO..

Actually Jetspeed-2 does have many j2-admin portlets already coded. I just have not configured them to display with the default installation using userId= user. Only 5 out of maybe 25 are shown without custom configuration. I need to learn how to do this?

I think Jetspeed2 is a good option, yet Liferay still seems intriging. I'm still in analysis to determine ???
Hopefully others on this forum can share similiar decision making criteria
Cameron Wallace McKenzie
author and cow tipper
Saloon Keeper

Joined: Aug 26, 2006
Posts: 4968
    
    1

I think BEA Portal is the Bentley of Web Portals in comparison to IBM, IMHO..


So it's overpriced, impractical, and only within the grasp of a few, elite, persons?

Yes, I never thought about BEA. With their market position, they really have to be better than the rest, not just compatable with, or as good as. I should take another look at them.

The reasons for a big bank that's already vested in DB2 to go with WebSphere, or the reasons for a small show with a low budget to go with JetSpeed, are obvious. BEA's competition point really needs to be quality and usability.

-Cameron McKenzie
[ January 12, 2007: Message edited by: Cameron W. McKenzie ]
Dan Harth
Greenhorn

Joined: Jan 12, 2007
Posts: 9
Thanks for information

Can you give me a estimate ballpark figure a typical one server installation might pay for

BEA Portal ?
IBM WebSphere Portal ?

I'm only interested in the cost of the software at this point?
Gran Roguismo
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Posts: 77
I can't speak for BEA, but I think the last time I called up an IBM rep to talk about a trial version of the latest portal server he told me it did not have a trial version, and the cost was ~90k per seat.
Tim Holloway
Saloon Keeper

Joined: Jun 25, 2001
Posts: 16145
    
  21

The problem with the original BEA and IBM portal servers was that they predated JSR-168, so their portlets were vendor-specific code. In addition to their considerable cost.

Liferay I believe also predates JSR-168, though it is one of the many platforms that added JSR-168 support on top of its legacy portal structure.

Pluto seems problematic to me. About the best way I've found to use it is in its capacity as embedded in recent versions of Cocoon. Which (you guessed it) also originally had an idiosyncratic portal framework.


Customer surveys are for companies who didn't pay proper attention to begin with.
Cameron Wallace McKenzie
author and cow tipper
Saloon Keeper

Joined: Aug 26, 2006
Posts: 4968
    
    1

Well, something had to come before JSR-168. WebSphere implemented the JetSpeed API, so, it was somewhat in line with what the rest of the portal community was doing.

Since WebSphere 5, we've had a JSR-168 compliant container to deploy to, so WebSphere has had the capability to support JSR168 compliant portlets. Plus, you can deploy a JSR168 Struts portlet and JSR168 JSF portlet to WebSphere as well, and you've been able to do so for a couple of years now.

I will admit, WebSphere is a tad more expensive than Liferay.

-Cameron McKenzie
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: what's the deal with pluto and liferay?