|
Home > Archive > WebSphere Portal Server > August 2005 > objectId of content root in V5.1
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
objectId of content root in V5.1
|
|
|
| We are currently in the process our portal environment from 5.0 to 5.1. In our 5.0 environments (integration staging and production) we are able to deploy pages to each environment using the same xmlaccess load script as the objectId of the content root n
ode (which our pages reference through the content-parentref attribute) was the same for each environment: "6_0_A Content Root".
However in the 5.1.0.1 environments the objectId of the content root is a different randonmly generated Id for each environment. The effect of this appears to be that the new pages are also created with different Idsk, so none of our delete and update scr
ipts work.
Is this a difference in V5.1 (maybe because of support for virtual portals?) or is it caused by something we did differently during installation, and if so what?
Many thanks in advance
| |
| Maik Weber 2005-08-26, 6:02 pm |
| In the created xml file, set create-oids="true"
to "false". Then no new Objects ID are created.
Maik
kublai.hoare@aon.co.uk wrote:
> We are currently in the process our portal environment from 5.0 to 5.1. In our 5.0 environments (integration staging and production) we are able to deploy pages to each environment using the same xmlaccess load script as the objectId of the content root
node (which our pages reference through the content-parentref attribute) was the same for each environment: "6_0_A Content Root".
> However in the 5.1.0.1 environments the objectId of the content root is a different randonmly generated Id for each environment. The effect of this appears to be that the new pages are also created with different Idsk, so none of our delete and update s
cripts work.
>
> Is this a difference in V5.1 (maybe because of support for virtual portals?) or is it caused by something we did differently during installation, and if so what?
>
> Many thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|