- Tanto Liferay como GateIn incorporan un pequeño gestor de contenidos. Portal3.0 no lo hace.
- Liferay incorpora un pequeño gestor de contenidos. Ni Portal3.0 ni GateIn lo hacen.
- Tanto Liferay como GateIn son implementaciones de JSR-168 (Portlets1) y de JSR-268 (Portlets2). Portal3.0 no lo implementa.
El por qué de estas diferencias es sencillo, Portal3.0 no integra un gestor de contenidos porque existen muchos WCM/DCM/CMS más capaces que los que proporcionan el resto soluciones. Portal3.0 no es una implementación de Portlets porque ya existen (Liferay y GateIn son un gran ejemplo).
En próximos post expondré las razones de ambas diferencias, repasando por qué Portal3.0 no implementa Portlets y por qué no integra un gestor de contenidos.
3 comentarios:
If Google Translate is correct I would like to bring some precisions.
GateIn doesn't embed neither force any ECM/WCM.
eXo platform will provide one though but choice is left to the user to install it or not.
A portal should be designed for this, to be able to add/remove components.
We prefer to be able to consume content from wherever is comes eXo WCM, Alfresco, CQ5 ... Edition can be left to those tools.
GateIn is a platform to build on.
Thanks Thomas, I was wrong about that. We (Portal3.0) prefers it like GateIn does. BTW, great work.
Thomas,
Thanks for your comment. Port@l 3.0 is also and first of all a portal platform, with a powerful development framework and component model as a basis. I'm sure the differences between its component model and portlets will be presented in future posts.
However, it does not pretend to be a generalist solution (eg it does not pretend to compete in the web desktop space, there are great products such as GateIn ) but there are some market segments where it really provides great value.
Publicar un comentario