Post details: Portal comparison: Liferay v. uPortal
Apr 26, 2006 : Portal comparison: Liferay v. uPortal
For Cornerstone University's portal we decided to switch from our planned uPortal 2.5.1 implementation to use Liferay 3.6.1 instead. Several people have wondered why. Here's a few comparisons:
| Feature | Liferay | uPortal |
|---|---|---|
| Customization | AJAX drag & drop | much more difficult, but slightly more options |
| User/group data integration | Must use its own SQL tables (we wrote scripts to insert into those) | Can map to remote SQL, LDAP, etc |
| Community | big, but often unanswered questions in forum | Smaller, seems more helpful, focused on higher-ed |
| Bundled portlets/channels | A lot (78). We use several (RSS, menu navigation, portlet aggregrator, Wiki display, weather) | Few, none of which provided much value to us |
| Themeing | easy | hard (~3 layers of abstraction) |
| Pretty URLs | yes | no |
| Layouts | each group you are a part of has a layout (page) hierarchy; this works very well for us. We did have to write a Java utility to insert similar layouts into similar groups | Don't think there is a way for heirachy of pages; each user's layout can appear different based on what groups they are in |
| Portlet hotdeploy | yes | no (?) |
| CAS for authentication | yes | yes |
| Installation into app server | Messy; requires putting lots of jars into common | Clean; the portal is just one webapp |
A very good comparison of these and more portals: http://epubs.cclrc.ac.uk/bitstream/785/406.pdf
Comments, Pingbacks:
Comment from:
Jason Shao [Visitor]
· http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jayshao/
Were any of these items in particular deal-breakers/decision points?
04/26/06 @ 16:22
Comment from:
Dave Brondsema [Member]
· http://brondsema.net/
The better usability, especially with drag-and-drop customization was very important. Ease of theming was also important since we had limited time. And then the way layouts and menus turned out ended up being a very nice bonus (something we hadn't fully understood before we made our decision).
04/26/06 @ 16:33
Comment from:
Derek Alexander [Visitor]
· http://www.lse.ac.uk/lseforyou/
Interesting post. What about Jetspeed2 - did you consider that at all?
04/28/06 @ 06:57
Comment from:
Brian Kim [Visitor]
· http://www.liferay.com
With Liferay 4.0, you now have the ability to create hot deployable template files which provide full flexibility of how to layout portlets on a page.
Also with 4.0, depending on the app server you use (Liferay can deploy on almost any app server), you can avoid placing jars into "common".
Cheers,
Brian Kim
Liferay, LLC
Also with 4.0, depending on the app server you use (Liferay can deploy on almost any app server), you can avoid placing jars into "common".
Cheers,
Brian Kim
Liferay, LLC
06/19/06 @ 16:30
Comment from:
dushan [Visitor]
hi
i need to integrate jetspeed2 with ja-sig CAS is there any way to achive this i looked in net and there it say we just need write a provider interface.what this mean how can i achive this please help me
i need to integrate jetspeed2 with ja-sig CAS is there any way to achive this i looked in net and there it say we just need write a provider interface.what this mean how can i achive this please help me
03/13/07 @ 08:35
Comment from:
Sang Nguyen [Visitor]
Please help me, I deployed a portlet JSR 168 by Sun's Netbean by Liferay server but could'nt run ! Could you tell me what I need notices when I deploy? surely that portlet ran very good by Netbean tool.
07/17/07 @ 09:42 Leave a comment:
