• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
TSB Alfresco Cobrand White tagline

Technology Services Group

  • Home
  • Products
    • Alfresco Enterprise Viewer
    • OpenContent Search
    • OpenContent Case
    • OpenContent Forms
    • OpenMigrate
    • OpenContent Web Services
    • OpenCapture
    • OpenOverlay
  • Solutions
    • Alfresco Content Accelerator for Claims Management
      • Claims Demo Series
    • Alfresco Content Accelerator for Policy & Procedure Management
      • Compliance Demo Series
    • OpenContent Accounts Payable
    • OpenContent Contract Management
    • OpenContent Batch Records
    • OpenContent Government
    • OpenContent Corporate Forms
    • OpenContent Construction Management
    • OpenContent Digital Archive
    • OpenContent Human Resources
    • OpenContent Patient Records
  • Platforms
    • Alfresco Consulting
      • Alfresco Case Study – Canadian Museum of Human Rights
      • Alfresco Case Study – New York Philharmonic
      • Alfresco Case Study – New York Property Insurance Underwriting Association
      • Alfresco Case Study – American Society for Clinical Pathology
      • Alfresco Case Study – American Association of Insurance Services
      • Alfresco Case Study – United Cerebral Palsy
    • HBase
    • DynamoDB
    • OpenText & Documentum Consulting
      • Upgrades – A Well Documented Approach
      • Life Science Solutions
        • Life Sciences Project Sampling
    • Veeva Consulting
    • Ephesoft
    • Workshare
  • Case Studies
    • White Papers
    • 11 Billion Document Migration
    • Learning Zone
    • Digital Asset Collection – Canadian Museum of Human Rights
    • Digital Archive and Retrieval – ASCP
    • Digital Archives – New York Philharmonic
    • Insurance Claim Processing – New York Property Insurance
    • Policy Forms Management with Machine Learning – AAIS
    • Liferay and Alfresco Portal – United Cerebral Palsy of Greater Chicago
  • About
    • Contact Us
  • Blog

Alfresco 4.0 – New Feature Comparison to Documentum (Part 1)

You are here: Home / Alfresco / Alfresco 4.0 – New Feature Comparison to Documentum (Part 1)

December 2, 2011

The Alfresco 4.0 Community Edition has been out since October, with an upcoming Enterprise release in the next month or so.  Alfresco has dubbed Alfresco 4.0 as  “the most significant release” of Alfresco to date.  Instead of summarizing the major new functionality features and enhancements, below are some new features in the core Alfresco repository which will be provided in the upcoming release and how they compare to functionality provided on the Documentum platform:

File System Transfer Receiver / Social Content Publishing
Alfresco has always provided the ability to publish to a file system as part of the AVM.  This functionality has finally been added to the core DM repository.  For purposes such as WCM,  this is great for publishing static images and content.  This is an extension of the existing Transfer Service developed to publish to runtime Alfresco instances.  Additionally Social Content Publishing provides a framework to publish to external content delivery services such as Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, SlideShare, etc.  If required, the framework allows to create and register custom publishing channels, whether they are internal or external in nature.
In the Documentum product suite, Interactive Deployment Services (formerly Site Caching Services) drives content publishing.  By default, content is published to a file system and metadata to a set of database tables.  The release of Interactive Deployment Services added an integration of xDB to allow for two way communication, similar to the use of an Alfresco Runtime repository.  
Interactive Deployment Services is licensed as a separate repository component, whereas Alfresco has included this as part of the core repository functionality.  The File System Transfer Receiver by default does not publish metadata to a set of database tables, but could easily be done by extending Transfer Services capability or leveraging an Alfresco Runtime instance.  Publishing metadata to Solr or NoSQL databases are common approaches as well.
Solr Integration
Alfresco has now added Solr integration in the Alfresco platform.  Lucene has long been an integral part of the core Alfresco repository, indexing content and metadata for search.  In some situations, In-transaction indexing could hamper repository performance for bulk imports.  Solr can now be deployed separate from the repository for better performance and scalability.
This reminds me of the progression of full text search in the “old” days when Documentum used to leverage Verity for full text search.  Verity was deployed as part of the repository, and not separated out.  It wasn’t until FAST was introduced that a separate server was required.  With the release of xPlore, this is also the case, and makes sense given the memory and I/O resources required to index content.  So far, xPlore is a huge improvement over FAST, in regards to performance and scalability.
From a feature perspective, both the xPlore and Alfresco Solr integrations are very similar.  First, both can scale independently as the repository grows. Second, metadata, content (for Full Text), and security ACLs are also indexed to provide faster search performance.  Third, they follow a model of eventual consistency, asynchronously indexing content which may vary depending upon the load of the indexer.  Finally, faceted search capabilities are also provided, giving guided search based on defined attributes.
Although generally both xPlore and Alfresco’s Solr integreation are similar in terms of functionality provided, there are differences in the underlying architecture.  xPlore is compromised of both Lucene and an integration with xDB (formerly the x-Hive database), whereas Alfresco is leveraging Solr, an open source search platform based on Lucene.  xPlore therefore leverages xQuery, translated to Lucence queries,  as its primary query language, and Alfresco leverages Lucene directly.
One difference we’ve noticed between the repositories is that, since Alfresco’s SOLR integration is “eventually consistent”, it is not trivial to guarantee the accuracy of search results relative to the data in the system at a given moment.  While Documentum’s xPlore index is also designed to be eventually consistent, DQL provides a means of querying transactionally consistent metadata by querying directly against the database.  This is something to consider for application developers, and can be worked around but not necessarily an issue for end users.
Attribute Encryption
In Alfresco, attributes may now be encrypted, providing an additional layer of security to prevent viewing of secure metadata unless you have the proper access.   Alfresco provides mechanisms to generate the Keystore and apply them and register them with the repository.  Documentum does not provide individual attribute encryption instead Documentum Trusted Content Services encrypts the file store where the physical content is located.  Alfresco has not yet exposed encryption at the file store, but could be handled at the operating system or storage level.
Documentum offers Trusted Content Services, which has always included file store level encryption of content, but not at the metadata later.  Alfresco has not yet exposed encryption at the filestore level as well.  It seems that both database and filestore encryption could be accomplished to the OS or Database level as well, but would be nice to see both implemented in both repositories.
In the next post I’ll focus on Alfresco 4.0 Workflow and Share features and functionality.

Filed Under: Alfresco, Documentum

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Steve says

    December 2, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    Thank you for the post. Can you explain how xPlore uses Lucene, but then doesn’t run into scalability issues when multiple xPlore servers are implemented in a cluster? A straight Lucene implementation has to sync all of the indices stored in the cluster which which hampers scalability.

    Reply
    • Ray says

      December 5, 2011 at 8:16 pm

      xPlore isn’t a straight Lucene implementation. It leverages and xml database (xDB) as well. In one example, you can create a multi-instance of xPlore and separate which content gets indexed in specific “collections”. So if you have 3-4 different Documentum applications running against a single docbase, search can be separated out for each content type dedicated to that application. xDB actually controls the indexing to Lucene, stores ACL info, and groups.

      Reply
  2. Petr says

    December 5, 2011 at 6:52 am

    For me it’s not clear what do they mean by ” A straight Lucene implementation has to sync all of the indices stored in the cluster ” ?

    We do not share lucene indexes between nodes. Each server-node works with a separate index.

    Reply
    • Ray says

      December 6, 2011 at 9:37 am

      Yes – that is how the current Alfresco repositories function in a clustered configuration. Each server manages its own Lucene index. On the Documentum xPlore side if you have a multi-instance, some type of NAS/SAN must be implemented and shared if the multi-instances are on different servers.

      Reply
  3. Sam says

    July 12, 2012 at 10:40 pm

    Thanks for the post. I found it very useful as some of the encryption details are not at all clear on Alfresco Wiki. I currently use Alfresco and have a new requirement to do file store encryption to prevent folks with file system access to read the contents from Alfresco content directories. If I understood your post correctly, Alfresco encryption cannot do this as it can only encrypt metadata, do you have any recommendation on whether it is better to look at alternate like Documentum or look at standalone file system encryption software and use that in conjunction with Alfresco? Your response is much appreciated.

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Web Content Curating and Publishing (WCM) in Documentum and Alfresco | TSG Blog says:
    August 19, 2013 at 8:33 am

    […] describes differences between the Documentum and Alfresco WCM products. Alfresco also offered new WCM features in version […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Search

Related Posts

  • Microsoft Teams integration and the Alfresco Enterprise Viewer for Document Review
  • Documentum or Alfresco Interface – Ready for an Upgrade?
  • Alfresco Enterprise Viewer – Offline Annotation for Efficient Review
  • Content Service Platform Scaling – How Good Key Design and NoSQL can avoid the need for Elastic/Solr or other indexes
  • Documentum – Do More with OpenContent and OpenAnnotate
  • Elastic Services for ECM – TSG OpenContent Roadmap
  • Print to Repository – OpenContent Print Driver Support
  • Mobius Content Services Migrations with OpenMigrate
  • ECM 2.0 – One-Step vs. Two-Step Migrations
  • Federated Content Management – Enterprise Search with a new moniker?

Recent Posts

  • Alfresco Content Accelerator and Alfresco Enterprise Viewer – Improving User Collaboration Efficiency
  • Alfresco Content Accelerator – Document Notification Distribution Lists
  • Alfresco Webinar – Productivity Anywhere: How modern claim and policy document processing can help the new work-from-home normal succeed
  • Alfresco – Viewing Annotations on Versions
  • Alfresco Content Accelerator – Collaboration Enhancements
stacks-of-paper

11 BILLION DOCUMENT
BENCHMARK
OVERVIEW

Learn how TSG was able to leverage DynamoDB, S3, ElasticSearch & AWS to successfully migrate 11 Billion documents.

Download White Paper

Footer

Search

Contact

22 West Washington St
5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602

inquiry@tsgrp.com

312.372.7777

Copyright © 2023 · Technology Services Group, Inc. · Log in

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. Please accept this site's cookies, but you can opt-out if you wish. Privacy Policy ACCEPT | Cookie settings
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT