This site is currently read-only as we are migrating to Oracle Forums for an improved community experience. You will not be able to initiate activity until January 30th, when you will be able to use this site as normal.

    Forum Stats

  • 3,890,147 Users
  • 2,269,775 Discussions


problem with newly created CMS repository

251513 Member Posts: 45
edited Oct 10, 2008 9:08AM in WebLogic Portal
Working under Weblogic 8.1 (sp4):

We configured a new repository to house the content specific to a new application. Therefore, we currently have two BEA repositories (Both repositories are Oracle database backed): The original repository from the Portal install by the BEA engineer, and a second repository which is the one we just added. The new repository is configured by the documentation at:

There are no errors thrown and we can see the new repository has been created.

The problem occurs when we attempt to add content to the repository (and it is either repository at this point):
Caused by: javax.naming.NameNotFoundException: While trying to lookup 'jdbc.contentDataSource' didn't find subcontext 'jdbc' Resolved ; remaining name 'jdbc/contentDataSource'
at weblogic.jndi.internal.BasicNamingNode.newNameNotFoundException(

The above data source is the data source for the original repository.

Has anyone configured a new database repository, had this issue and resolved it?

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,



  • 648793
    648793 Member Posts: 96
    I think the problem is with the jdbc. Try removing jdbc (jdbc.contentDataSource) from the Repository configuration and it will work. It should be contentDataSource only.
    But even this is wrong. The new CMS must be created in the new schema of oracle. Ideally you should create a new datasource (you can make a new copy the content datasource, and change its properties). This new datasource lets say ContentDataSource2 should be used in the new Repository configuration.
  • 251513
    251513 Member Posts: 45

    Sorry for the late response. We did create a new data source (and a new connection pool) for the new repository. This error seems to be coming from the old/original data source for some reason.

  • 648793
    648793 Member Posts: 96
    edited Oct 6, 2008 3:13PM
    That means somthing is messed up in the old configuration. Please post JNDI name of the datasource and the JNDi name you are using in repository configuration. Did you try removing jdbc/ from the repository configuration. Please try that if you have not done it. If possible, please post your datasource .xml file and screen shot of the content repository configuration.
  • 251513
    251513 Member Posts: 45
    "...the JNDi name you are using in repository configuration.."

    Can you point me to the file for the repository configuration?

    please post your datasource .xml file

    I do not see a "datasource .xml file"...could you tell me which file this is?
  • 648793
    648793 Member Posts: 96
    You datasource files are located in the X:\bea102\user_projects\domains\algerDomain\config\jdbc directory, so there must be a file named portalDataSourceXXXX.xml.

    To get to you repository configuration do to portalAdmn tool ->Content Management->Repositories (from the left column)->Click on the you desired repository. It will show you all the configuration on the right panel.
  • 251513
    251513 Member Posts: 45

    Thanks for your help with this issue. We found the problem yesterday and deployed to the fix this morning.

    In the file "weblogic-ejb-jar.xml" when I renamed the data source, I "interpreted" things a little too much and changed the tag:




    I am not sure if I propagated the changes with the res-ref-name tag to the other files if things would have worked, but the changes were only made in this file. So after looking at an example sent by Oracle/BEA the problem was found and resolved.

    Thanks again.
  • 251513
    251513 Member Posts: 45
    problem has been resolved by putting the file weblogic-ejb-jar.xml tags <res-ref-name> back to where they should be:

This discussion has been closed.