IBM Filenet 与 SharePoint
我正在评估一个系统的设计，该系统将使用 FileNet 来存储文档，并可能使用 SharePoint 作为前端。
我想知道的是：为什么不将文档存储在 SharePoint 中？是什么让 FileNet 成为一个更好的系统？
I am evaluating the design of a system which will use FileNet to store documents and may use SharePoint as the front end.
What I am wondering is: Why not just store the documents in SharePoint? What is it that makes FileNet such a better system?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
他们很可能已经购买了 FileNet 并决定将其作为记录管理的标准，但也单独决定将 SharePoint 作为标准门户。
SharePoint 确实能够存储各种文件，并且没有任何技术原因反对使用它，但企业架构通常涉及的不仅仅是纯粹的技术原因。
根据 https:// technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc262787(v=office.16).aspx，Sharepoint 2016 在活跃使用的文档集合中支持多达 6000 万个大小为 4TB 的项目，如果在存档中使用则更多系统类型（低读取/访问计数）
2013-2010等老版本支持较少。
SharePoint 作为一种协作工具非常有用，可用于修改 Word 文档、Excel 工作表等。FileNet 更倾向于大规模企业内容管理以及基于工作流的内容处理和访问。
Most likely they already bought FileNet and decided on it as the standard for records management, but also seperately decided on SharePoint as the standard portal.
SharePoint is indeed capable of storing all sorts of files, and there are no technical reasons against using it, but enterprise architecture typically involves a lot more than purely technical reasons.
According to https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc262787(v=office.16).aspx, Sharepoint 2016 supports up to 60 million items sizing 4TB in an actively used document collection, more if used in an archive type of system (low read/ access count)
Older versions 2013-2010, etc. supported less.
SharePoint is useful as a collaborative tool for modifying word documents, excel sheets, etc. FileNet is more driven toward enterprise content management for large scale, and workflow based content processing and access.
我同意汤姆·克拉克森的说法，即该决定可能与技术可行性无关。但是，由于实际的技术原因，您会使用 FileNet 而不是 SharePoint 来存储文档。
例如，假设您有数十 TB 的 TIF 图像。 FileNet 是管理此类信息最流行的工具之一。从理论上讲，Sharepoint可能可以管理如此大量的数据，但这可能不是一场好的赌博。几十年来，FileNet 一直能够完成此类任务。
此外，FileNet 生态系统比 Sharepoint 更成熟。 FileNet 已经存在了几十年，如果您能想象得到，某些 3rd 方已经编写了它来与 FileNet 一起使用。 Sharepoint 生态系统也非常强大，但它的存在时间并不长。
这是另一种可能性。您的客户可能已在 FileNet Records Manager 工具上投入了大量资金，以处理公司中大多数电子内容的自动记录管理。他们可能希望使用记录管理器工具来自动管理将由 Sharepoint 显示的内容的生命周期。现在，他们可以将此内容存储在 Sharepoint 内，但这可能会迫使他们购买更多软件来管理文档生命周期。对于他们来说，将其保存在 FileNet 中可能更便宜。
哈！
I agree with Tom Clarkson's statement that the decision probably has little to do with technical feasability. However, there are actual technical reasons why you would use FileNet to store your documents instead of SharePoint.
For example, let's say that you have dozens of terabytes of TIF images. One of the most popular tools for managing this type of information is FileNet. Theoretically, Sharepoint could probably manage this amount of data, but it's probably not a good gamble. FileNet has been able to do this type of task for decades.
Also, the FileNet ecosystem is more mature than Sharepoint. FileNet has been around for decades, and if you can imagine it, some 3rd-party has written it to work with FileNet. The Sharepoint ecosystem is also very robust, but it just hasn't been around as long.
Here's another possibility. Your client might have invested a lot of money into the FileNet Records Manager tool to handle automated records management for most electronic content in your company. They may want to use the Records Manager tool to automatically manage the life cycle of the content that will be displayed by Sharepoint. Now, they could instead store this content inside of Sharepoint, but that might force them to purchase more software to manage document life cycles. It might just be cheaper for them to keep it in FileNet.
HTH!
SharePoint 在很多方面都做得很好。它做得不太好的一件事是管理数 TB 的文档。正如其他人所说，如果没有一些数量信息，很难说为什么做出这样的选择。 FileNet 可以轻松完成许多需要您构建或购买额外软件的事情。立即想到将图像刻录到 WORM 介质。
我很想知道该项目进展如何（正在进行）以及您是否找到了该决定的原因。
SharePoint does a lot of things well. One thing it doesn't do all that well is manage many terabytes of documents. As others have said, without some volume information it's hard to say why that choice has been made. There are a large number of things that FileNet will do easily that would require you to build or buy additional software. Burning images to WORM media comes immediately to mind.
I'd be interested to hear how the project went (is going) and if you found a reason for the decision.