> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 3:04 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Is Jetspeed appropriate ?
>
>
> Hi Jetspeeders,
>
> I need to build an intranet portal for a big company (15,000
> potential users, probably more likely to be around
> 4,000-5,000 active users). I haven't been following Jetspeed
> for the past year and I need your help to know if it can be
> used on that project.
>
> Let me give you more details on what features I would need. I
> would very much appreciate if you could tell me how much I
> would need to work to make that happen using a Jetspeed
> infrastructure ... :-)
>
> Could you rate with the following scale :
> * 0 : not possible,
> * 1 : lots of coding to do, this is not a built-in feature,
> * 2 : a little coding to do, but very well in the scope of
> jetspeed and a known feature
> * 3 : exist as a feature, can be used as is or through some
> configuration but with no coding required
>
> Features needed :
>
> - Ability to map the authentication and authorizations to an
> existing LDAP schema.
See below
> - Ability to display portlet list based on user role or other
> criteria coming from LDAP (such as the Office Branch of the employee)
See below
> - Ability to customize the content of a portlet based on user
> role, language, country, and other parameters coming from
> LDAP (employee branch, etc)
See below
> - Any JAAS support ?
Im working on a JAAS proposal and will start coding sometime next week.
The plan is to completely decouple Turbine Security, and make security
more pluggable.
Will implement a default Jetspeed JAAS Security manager.
For the default implementation, I wasn't planning on using LDAP, but Im
open to suggestions.
As another approach, you can consider keeping Turbine-2 security and
find a LDAP implementation.
Im not sure, but I thought that someone implemented a LDAP service for
Turbine.
Check the Turbine list.
> - Page content parsing for URL rewriting : I can see there is
> already a URL rewriter (actually a new implementation seem to
> be in progress). How much would I need to code/debug/improve
> to make it a reliable and fast solution ?
There is the WebPagePortlet using the old URL rewriter.
I have recently written a second URL rewriter, which is better than the
first.
You may also want to try out the IFramePortlet
2 or 3
> - Fine-grained Portlet caching : per user, per URL (including HTTP
> parameters)
2 or 3
>
> Also :
>
> - Performance : All the jetspeed web sites I have seen were
> not particularly fast. Is there any known issue WRT
> performance ? Do all the performance issues come from
> aggregated content or is the Jetspeed framework itself (or
> Turbine) a bottleneck ? Or is it Tomcat (does it make a
> difference running jetspeed on Resin) ? Is there any work
> going on at the current time to improve performances ?
>
For the upcoming release, we will tune Jetspeed for performance.
Ive ran Jetspeed on Weblogic and other web servers.
Im also running it on Apache with several Tomcat nodes.
I think performance is something we can improve on, and is not a major
issue.
> - I think IBM is using Jetspeed as the base for WebSphere
> Portal Server. If so, is IBM working on a new branch of
> Jetspeed or are they working on the same Jakarta CVS version ?
>
New branch, and its not in our cvs.
> - We plan to use mostly the WebPage Portlet (with caching of
> course) and the JSP portlet. Any issues with these 2 ?
Not that I know of.
>
> - Has anyone developed any Web SSO feature for the WebPage
> Portlet (for example supporting Basic and form-based
> authentication) ? For example, for each Application you could
> configure a SSOWebPagePortlet in the config file, passing SSO
> parameters and reading credentials from a store.
>
I think so. Check the mailing list. I believe David Powers has done this
before and was planning on committing something.
> Overall, would you recommend using Jetspeed for a full fledge
> intranet of such a size ? Would you use it yourself for that
> ? Do you foresee any issue ?
>
Yes I would.
Issues:
- there's a lack of diverse out of the box portlets. With the
standardization of portlets coming soon, Jetspeed will be able to use
any standard portlet.
David
> Lots of questions ... !
>
> Thanks a lot for your help
> -Vincent
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:jetspeed-user-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For
> additional commands,
> e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
