hi robin, On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Robin Wyles <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm having problems migrating an existing repository from Jackrabbit 1.6.0 to > 2.1.0. > > Here are the steps I followed to test the migration: > > 1. Update app to use Jackrabbit 2.1.0, run unit tests etc. Manually test > against empty 2.1.0 repository. All works fine here. Our repository > configuration has not changed at all between versions. > > 2. Used mysqldump to export production repository. > > 3. Copy production repository directory (workspace folder, datastore, index > folders etc.) to test machine. > > 4. Import SQL file from 2 above to new DB on test machine. > > 5. Start application on test machine. > > The result of the above is that the application starts up without error but > that the repository appears empty. I am able to add new nodes to the > repository, which behave correctly within the application yet none of the > existing nodes are visible. I've tried xpath queries against known paths, > e.g. "//library/*" and these return 0 nodes. > > A few things I've tried/noticed: > > 1. Repeating steps 3 and 4 above, then removing the old index directories > before starting the application. Jackrabbit creates new lucene indexes, but > they are very small, just like they would be when initialising an empty > repository. Also, the index files are called indexes_2 rather than indexes as > they were under 1.6.0. > > 2. When starting the app after the migration I notice that 4 extra records > have been added to the BUNDLE table, 3 extra records are added to the > VERSION_BUNDLE table and 2 extra records added to the VERSION_NAMES table. > Again, this seems to be consistent with what is added automatically added to > the database when a new repository is initialised. > > So, basically it appears that Jackrabbit is completely ignoring the existing > repository data, and instead initialising a new repos using the existing > database… > > If anyone has any ideas as to how I can get 2.1.0 to recognise our existing > repository they'd be gratefully received - I feel there must be something > simple I've overlooked!
hmm, seems like the key values (i.e. the id format) has changed. however, i am not aware of such a change. maybe someone else knows more? cheers stefan > > Many thanks, > > Robin >
