Hi all, I think we are heading in the wrong direction here. IIRC, we discussed to implement a social component. The UES guys are or will be working on this. The idea was to keep this outside of the registry. Can you'll chat with Ruchira as well and try to understand how all of this fits together. The AM and the ES and the rest of the social aspects have to line up or these will increasingly become incompatible.
And, WRT Uvindra's case. That solution was a highly subjective one Uvindra. As Ajith says, we cannot make it a generic solution and be done with that. This has to be solved properly. But, for the scenario of a forum I don't think any of that was discussed here is going to work as I have explained above. Thanks, Senaka. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Ajith Vitharana <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Nuwan, > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Nuwan Dias <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Ajith Vitharana <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Uvindra, >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Uvindra Dias Jayasinha <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> This limitation was highlighted during the discussion we had with Ajith >>>> just before work on the API Store forum was started. As I mentioned we ran >>>> into the same limitation when developing the development governance >>>> solution. The text area that was to store custom javascript rules could not >>>> accommodate anything exceeding 1000 characters. In the end after discussing >>>> with Senaka we solved the problem by increasing the column size of >>>> REG_VALUE to 5000 and changing the DB scripts that were shipped with the >>>> solution accordingly. >>>> >>> >>> So, what happen when the length is 5001 ? :) >>> >> >> Yes, I think we should someday fix this rxt field to property mapping. >> Otherwise there's no point in having a field called 'text-area' in the rxt >> right? Its capabilities become limited to same as the 'text' field. >> Besides, from a user POV, there's no point in creating a property in the >> rxt for each field. And when you comes across the need to store more than >> 1000 characters in an artifact, you're totally blocked from doing so and >> have to resort to other complicated measures. >> >> So I suggest that we make it a point to fix this urgently when >> appropriate. Kernel 4.3.0 or C5 at least. Sooner the better :) >> > > As I mentioned early, property is the storage model we used for RXT. > Storing the whole content as XML (BLOB) and parsing XML each time is NOT > a solution at all. > Registry schema is a generic one to platform and it can't be change the > with the requirement of all new features. So, what we can do is use the > existing feature combinations to support the new requirement. > > If you want to store the large content/doc with artifact, then store that > content as separate resource and build the dependency/association with the > artifacts. > > WDYT ? > > Thanks. > Ajith. > > > >> >>> Thanks. >>> Ajith. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Nuwan Dias <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ajith, >>>>> >>>>> We're developing a forum for the API Store using the registry as the >>>>> storage medium. Each topic/reply is stored in the registry as an artifact. >>>>> Topics/Replies have a rich text editor which supports code blocks, etc. >>>>> This text-area has been mapped to a text-area field in the rxt. So >>>>> limiting >>>>> the characters to < 1000 is not very feasible in this scenario. >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying that increasing the column size of REG_VALUE is not a >>>>> good idea? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> NuwanD. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Ajith Vitharana <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Nuwan, >>>>>> >>>>>> We store the each filed as properties of the artifacts, that is the >>>>>> data model used. Anyway, having the 1000 characters for the given field >>>>>> is >>>>>> a special case. >>>>>> So, it is not better to increase the default schema to handle this >>>>>> use case. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can't we limit the characters length for that text-area ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> Ajith. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Nuwan Dias <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have an rxt on which I am using a text-area field. However I get >>>>>>> the following error if I am to put more that 1000 characters in the >>>>>>> field. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> org.h2.jdbc.JdbcSQLException: Value too long for column "REG_VALUE >>>>>>> VARCHAR(1000)": "STRINGDECODE('<table><tbody><tr><td >>>>>>> class=\""votecell\""><div class=\""vote\"">\n <span >>>>>>> class=\""vote-count-post \"">2</span>\n ... (1107)"; SQL statement: >>>>>>> INSERT INTO REG_PROPERTY (REG_NAME, REG_VALUE, REG_TENANT_ID) VALUES >>>>>>> (?, ?, ?) [90005-140] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason for the above problem is due to the fact that each field >>>>>>> in the rxt is also saved as a rxt property. The column length in the >>>>>>> database for the property value is 1000 characters. Therefore basically >>>>>>> its >>>>>>> not possible to have a field in the rxt which is more than 1000 >>>>>>> characters >>>>>>> long. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see this as a serious limitation. The only possible workaround I >>>>>>> see is to increase the column size. Any other solutions to this? Why do >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> need to have a property corresponding to each field in the rxt? If we >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> get rid of that, then we're good IMO. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> NuwanD. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Nuwan Dias >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Associate Tech Lead - WSO2, Inc. http://wso2.com >>>>>>> email : [email protected] >>>>>>> Phone : +94 777 775 729 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Ajith Vitharana. >>>>>> WSO2 Inc. - http://wso2.org >>>>>> Email : [email protected] >>>>>> Mobile : +94772217350 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Nuwan Dias >>>>> >>>>> Associate Tech Lead - WSO2, Inc. http://wso2.com >>>>> email : [email protected] >>>>> Phone : +94 777 775 729 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Uvindra >>>> >>>> Mobile: 777733962 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ajith Vitharana. >>> WSO2 Inc. - http://wso2.org >>> Email : [email protected] >>> Mobile : +94772217350 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Nuwan Dias >> >> Associate Tech Lead - WSO2, Inc. http://wso2.com >> email : [email protected] >> Phone : +94 777 775 729 >> > > > > -- > Ajith Vitharana. > WSO2 Inc. - http://wso2.org > Email : [email protected] > Mobile : +94772217350 > > -- *[image: http://wso2.com] <http://wso2.com> Senaka Fernando* Software Architect; WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com * Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://apache.org <http://apache.org>E-mail: senaka AT wso2.com <http://wso2.com>**P: +1 408 754 7388; ext: 51736*; *M: +44 782 741 1966 Linked-In: http://linkedin.com/in/senakafernando <http://linkedin.com/in/senakafernando>*Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
