-
Liferay 4.2 Released (17 messages)
- Posted by: michael young
- Posted on: December 14 2006 06:15 EST
Liferay 4.2 has been released. It features ESB/JBI integration with jBPM and Apache ServiceMix, Parallel Rendering, Dynamic Virtual Hosting, and much more. Liferay has integration with Alfresco for content management, many samples showing the use of various Java frameworks, WSRP support, single-signon capabilities, and has been deployed on an impressive array of application servers and servlet containers. The only server it hasn't been successfully deployed on (yet) is JFox, an open source J2EE application server from China. Database support is just as wide, with support for DB2, SAP, SQL Server, PostgreSQL, MySQL, Oracle, Interbase, Hypersonic, and more.Threaded Messages (17)
- Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by Mark N on December 14 2006 11:36 EST
- Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by Andy Leung on December 14 2006 14:01 EST
-
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by Mark N on December 14 2006 05:49 EST
- sharepoint? by ahmet a on December 14 2006 10:05 EST
- Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by K S on December 15 2006 08:45 EST
-
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by Mark N on December 14 2006 05:49 EST
- Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by Andy Leung on December 14 2006 14:01 EST
- Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by K S on December 14 2006 12:37 EST
- Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by Brian Chan on December 14 2006 12:46 EST
-
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by Rickard Oberg on December 15 2006 04:47 EST
-
SiteVision Released by Christian Sell on December 15 2006 08:02 EST
-
Re: SiteVision Released by Rickard Oberg on December 16 2006 03:16 EST
-
Re: SiteVision Released by Roy Russo on December 16 2006 08:21 EST
- Re: SiteVision Released by Rickard Oberg on December 16 2006 09:07 EST
-
Re: SiteVision Released by Roy Russo on December 16 2006 08:21 EST
-
Re: SiteVision Released by Rickard Oberg on December 16 2006 03:16 EST
-
SiteVision Released by Christian Sell on December 15 2006 08:02 EST
- Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by Ara Abrahamian on December 17 2006 08:55 EST
- Fake. by Fuad Efendiyev on October 14 2007 12:52 EDT
-
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by Rickard Oberg on December 15 2006 04:47 EST
- Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by Mark N on December 14 2006 13:39 EST
- Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by Brian Chan on December 14 2006 12:46 EST
- Re: Liferay 4.2 Released by Neil Griffin on December 15 2006 23:26 EST
- Liferay Portal Migration by Phakamile Shabalala on April 12 2007 10:13 EDT
-
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Mark N
- Posted on: December 14 2006 11:36 EST
- in response to michael young
Excellent! I was looking through future releases and saw BI (Liferay Vision). Interesting. Is that going to be from the ground up or reused some of what is out there? -
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Andy Leung
- Posted on: December 14 2006 14:01 EST
- in response to Mark N
This portal is great! I love it. I thought it's slow but the fact is you just need to know how to tune up. I have it running for my company portal and it works fine. Bugs? Microsoft products have tons too. One thing good about this product is that its structure is pretty clean. The only problem is that it lacks of many documentations such as portlet development and very detail user guide. The current user guide doesn't really explain every component of this system, it simply concentrates on showing how to use the security of the system, that's it. However, I could see that the community is getting big and people are helping to grow this little product so I really recommend Liferay. -
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Mark N
- Posted on: December 14 2006 17:49 EST
- in response to Andy Leung
Bugs? Microsoft products have tons too.
Not sure if my post was clear, but I agree with you Andy. I was trying to say Sharepoint is slow slow slow - and it is a developed by a company with lots of money behind it. To top off the slowness, try debugging errors with it. :( -
sharepoint?[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: ahmet a
- Posted on: December 14 2006 22:05 EST
- in response to Mark N
Not sure if my post was clear, but I agree with you Andy. I was trying to say Sharepoint is slow slow slow - and it is a developed by a company with lots of money behind it. To top off the slowness, try debugging errors with it. :(
Sharepoint is the most disgusting thing we have ever been forced to use. period. -
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: K S
- Posted on: December 15 2006 08:45 EST
- in response to Andy Leung
However, I could see that the community is getting big and people are helping to grow this little product so I really recommend Liferay.
People have been saying that for several years now. There is no hope of ever getting usable documentation from Liferay-- they want your $$ through consulting gigs. I like the idea of Liferay, it just isn't a viable option w/o complete unit tests and documentation. -
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: K S
- Posted on: December 14 2006 12:37 EST
- in response to michael young
is it still slow, buggy, with incredibly heavy resource usage and without any unit tests? -
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Brian Chan
- Posted on: December 14 2006 12:46 EST
- in response to K S
Boot up time on Tomcat is about 8-9 seconds. Page load time is at .25 seconds. Was recently clocked by InfoWorld at 10x faster load handling than other portals. Added unit tests. Added ajax parallel rendering. See http://www.liferay.com/ for latest feature set. -
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Rickard Oberg
- Posted on: December 15 2006 04:47 EST
- in response to Brian Chan
Boot up time on Tomcat is about 8-9 seconds. Page load time is at .25 seconds. Was recently clocked by InfoWorld at 10x faster load handling than other portals.
Nice arbitrary comparison with unnamed vendors. Here's another arbitrary statement with regard to scalability: our SiteVision portal can handle the load of the Swedish IRS website during tax declaration day on a single IBM ThinkPad (16M hits/day, subsecond response times assumed). They chickened out this year and used 5 Dell servers instead, which had an average CPU load of about 50-60%. And another one on portal performance: when the Swedish IRS switched from a static DreamWeaver website served by Apache to our SiteVision portal/CMS platform which dynamically generates web sites using JSR168 portlets their average response time went from .24 seconds to .22 seconds per page load. I can give you more arbitrary performance numbers, but I think you get the point ;-) -
SiteVision Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Christian Sell
- Posted on: December 15 2006 20:02 EST
- in response to Rickard Oberg
I can give you more arbitrary performance numbers, but I think you get the point ;-)
the point I am getting is that you are plugging your product on a competitor's announcement thread -
Re: SiteVision Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Rickard Oberg
- Posted on: December 16 2006 03:16 EST
- in response to Christian Sell
Do you think that this competitors unsubstantiated claims, which are blatantly incorrect, should not be addressed? I could have said "that's just wrong", but it seemed like a better idea to explain why I think it was wrong too, or I'd be guilty of the same error. Due to the nature of the claim I was addressing it would seem almost impossible to do so without "plugging" whatever it was that made that claim blatantly incorrect, and yes, in this case it happened to be my own product. C'est la vie.I can give you more arbitrary performance numbers, but I think you get the point ;-)
the point I am getting is that you are plugging your product on a competitor's announcement thread -
Re: SiteVision Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Roy Russo
- Posted on: December 16 2006 08:21 EST
- in response to Rickard Oberg
Do you think that this competitors unsubstantiated claims, which are blatantly incorrect, should not be addressed?
+1. Rickard was merely putting things in perspective and pointing out the obvious that most of us in technology know... benchmarks are unreliable as a gauge. Actually providing real-world customer performance stories is much more reliable. Benchmarking portals are probably worse than normal, as most of these "outfits" don't bench the portal framework, but the pages, and depending on what portlets I have on a page, it could impact performance drastically leading to questionable results. Anyway, instead of this degrading in to a flame-war over benchmarks... Congrats to the Liferay team on this release. STAY METAL! Roy Russo
I could have said "that's just wrong", but it seemed like a better idea to explain why I think it was wrong too, or I'd be guilty of the same error. Due to the nature of the claim I was addressing it would seem almost impossible to do so without "plugging" whatever it was that made that claim blatantly incorrect, and yes, in this case it happened to be my own product. C'est la vie. -
Re: SiteVision Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Rickard Oberg
- Posted on: December 16 2006 09:07 EST
- in response to Roy Russo
Rickard was merely putting things in perspective and pointing out the obvious that most of us in technology know... benchmarks are unreliable as a gauge. Actually providing real-world customer performance stories is much more reliable.
Or at least more useful, as it shows what an actual user is experiencing in a real scenario. As you point out, it's really difficult to do reasonable benchmarks of portals, as one would basically have to do "Hello World" portlets only in order to not interfere with the portal framework performance, which is what one may want to benchmark. But then again, since in our case the portlets *are* important, as they implement the CMS functionality, it *is* useful to know their performance as well. And for that I think real-life numbers are more useful than lab tests.Anyway, instead of this degrading in to a flame-war over benchmarks... Congrats to the Liferay team on this release.
+1, we are not competitors to Liferay in any sense of the word, so it would be meaningless to not encourage their work! I wish all the best to Liferay and any other portal vendor who is doing good things. -
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Ara Abrahamian
- Posted on: December 17 2006 08:55 EST
- in response to Brian Chan
Boot up time on Tomcat is about 8-9 seconds. Page load time is at .25 seconds. Was recently clocked by InfoWorld at 10x faster load handling than other portals. Added unit tests. Added ajax parallel rendering. See http://www.liferay.com/ for latest feature set.
Do you call a few 10 liner base junit classes unit tests for a huge app like liferay? Liferay is a good product, iff you are to just deploy it and use some of its features. As soon as you want to customize it, or enhance it, or even use its features heavily, you end up cursing yourself for choosing it. Thanks to non existing javadoc comments it's even more fun! Honestly I think the liferay team should stop adding new features and instead go back to drawing board and start from scratch with a maintainable/readable codebase! ;-) I'm surprised the other open source portal servers hasn't caught up with liferay, feature-wise I mean. They look good architecturally, but they just don't look finished/polished. Ara. -
Fake.[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Fuad Efendiyev
- Posted on: October 14 2007 12:52 EDT
- in response to Brian Chan
Page load time 0.25 seconds, measured by specific tools??? Funny staff for "parallel AJAX"!!! How many request-response should be done to show simple DOM? And you call it "Page load 0.25" Fake. Visual measurement: few seconds per "action", double-Opteron on SuSE gets overloaded with a single (local) user. LifeRay 4.3.3 -
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Mark N
- Posted on: December 14 2006 13:39 EST
- in response to K S
is it still slow, buggy, with incredibly heavy resource usage and without any unit tests?
Try working with Sharepoint. lol. It's all about perspective. -
Re: Liferay 4.2 Released[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Neil Griffin
- Posted on: December 15 2006 23:26 EST
- in response to michael young
Liferay's feature set, dedication to standards, and compatibility with major app servers and databases is truly astounding. In some ways, they are way ahead of commercial competitors. For example, Liferay introduced support for JSF portlets about 6-8 months before BEA. And last I checked, Oracle still doesn't support JSF portlets. With the release of 4.0, there are many recorded (Lifecast) tutorials available for free at the Liferay website. The message boards are very active, and I've observed that the staff at Liferay post free advice and answers on the message boards seemingly every day. -
Liferay Portal Migration[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Phakamile Shabalala
- Posted on: April 12 2007 10:13 EDT
- in response to michael young
If anyone has any experiences taking an existing liferay portal and migrating to any proprietary portal solution such as Websphere Portal or BEA Portal or any other JSR 168 compliant one.