[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2644?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Marcel Reutegger reassigned OAK-2644:
-------------------------------------
Assignee: (was: Thomas Mueller)
> Lift the 150 character limit on node names
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-2644
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2644
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: mongomk, rdbmk
> Affects Versions: 1.0
> Reporter: Felix Meschberger
> Priority: Major
>
> Currently -- as of Oak 1.1.7 and 1.0.12 releases -- there is a limit on the
> length of 150 characters for item names in Oak.
> This limit seems to be based upon a limitation in the MongoDB MK
> implementation because MongoDB has a limit of 1024 bytes (I think) for
> indexable properties.
> I think this limitation is highly unexpected and seems to be largeyl
> undocumented. For previous users of Jackrabbit it should probably at least be
> documented on the [Backwards
> Compatibility|http://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/differences.html] page.
> The main problem, though, I have with this limit is, that it is based on a
> limitation of a particular MK implementation and hits through the full stack.
> I would have rather expected such a persistence limitation to be fully hidden
> and handled inside the MK implementation.
> Granted this limitation does not seem to violate the JCR 2.1 specification
> which clearly states in section 3.2.4 Naming Restrictions:
> bq. This definition of JCR name represents the least restrictive set of
> constraints permitted for the naming of items and other entities. A
> repository may further restrict the names of entities to a subset of JCR
> names and in most cases is encouraged to do so.
> and
> bq. A writable repository may enforce any implementation-specific constraint
> by causing an exception to be thrown on an invalid JCR write method call.
> Still I think it is a questionable limitation for a generic repository where
> such names may be auto-generated and thus be quite long depending on the use
> case.
> I understand this may be hard to fix but would still be happy to be able to
> have (virtually) unlimited name length again as it was the case in Jackrabbit
> 2.
> Thanks.
> See also OAK-333 for a previous discussion.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
