I agree that Oak should be the first choice for newcomers, since it is more performant and scalable, and so much work went into it.
Only use Jackrabbit 2.x if you must use the features that Oak does not implement, and if the scale of your use case works fine with JR 2.x. I believe the confusion is just a matter of separate websites & repositories etc. Which was a deliberate choice IIRC because JR 2.x had to stay around as the reference implementation for the JCR spec. Cheers, Alex > On 09.06.2018, at 03:34, Roy Teeuwen <[email protected]> wrote: > > What ever happend to this question? Still find it valid > >> On 27 Feb 2018, at 21:15, Robert Munteanu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 12:21 -0500, Matt Ryan wrote: >>> Are there use cases where users should prefer Jackrabbit over Oak? >>> Or is >>> Oak considered a full replacement for Jackrabbit in every case? >> >> My understanding is that Jackrabbit is a reference implementation of >> the spec, with all bells and whistles, while Oak does not implement the >> parts that are tricky to get done in a performant way, e.g. >> EventJournal or multiple workspaces. >> >> Robert >
