Hi Nuwan, WRT the text area element it is an HTML form field. You cannot expect that to be unlimited text, but generally it's a higher number. The issue with properties is not the RXT design but a handler that copies these fields to support JCR APIs. That can be fixed by breaking up the payload into parts. It might take few days with testing etc, but is not very complicated. But, still what you are trying to save is not just the post, but the full HTML, which further increases size.
Since we have two weeks, I don't think we have options, but this is not a proper implementation moving forward. Thanks, Senaka. On Sunday, May 11, 2014, Nuwan Dias <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I have got around the problem by storing the content as a separate > registry resource. The only drawback in this case is that we'll have to > write a separate indexer for searching by content. The forum topic and > other metadata still reside within the artifact and therefore > indexing/searching is not a problem. So basically the problem is solved. > > The problem I wanted to highlight. > ------------------------------------------------- > As per my understanding the 'text' field and 'text-area' field in > artifacts have no differences. They both can store only a limited number of > characters. Am I right? If so, for someone using the registry to store > artifacts it looks misleading and makes them think that limiting a > text-area content length is wrong. I understand that this behavior is by > design and it is overly complicated to change this :). > > Why we used the registry? > -------------------------------------- > The registry already has in built capabilities for searching/indexing, > sorting, pagination, categorization through tags, artifact permissions, > etc. We also had the need of a permission model (coupled with APIs) for the > forum. And on top of that we needed to get this forum implemented pretty > fast (~2 weeks). When the registry already has all these capabilities, why > would we reinvent everything on top of something else? Besides, having it > in the registry makes it integrate with the API Store nicely since API > artifacts are anyway in the registry as well. So linking up API permission > rules with forum topics can be done seamlessly. > > Having said that, this forum is not tightly coupled with the Registry. It > is exposed to the FE (UI) through a clearly defined API (interface). The > first cut implementation is a registry based implementation. But anyone > could implement this interface for anything else. > > Thanks, > NuwanD. > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Ruchira Wageesha <[email protected]>wrote: > > Hi Senaka, > > Yes, UES team is supposed to do this and have already completed most of > the base of it using cassandra. But, depending a AM's commitment, they > wanted to implement something quickly, AFAIK, probably within 2 weeks. > > You can find the thread on that at @architecture "[Architecture] > Developer Forum for the API Store" [1] > > [1] https://mail-archive.com/architecture%40wso2.org/msg03817.html > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Senaka Fernando <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 th > > -- *[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 1966Linked-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
