Welcome to the #dominoforever Product Ideas Lab! The place where you can submit product ideas and enhancement request. We encourage you to participate by voting on, commenting on, and creating new ideas. All new ideas will be evaluated jointly by the IBM & HCL Product Management & Engineering teams, and the next steps will be communicated. While not all submitted ideas will be executed upon, community feedback will play a key role in influencing which ideas are and when they will be implemented.

For more information and upcoming events around #dominoforever, please visit our Destination Domino page.


The customer would like to be able to replicate everything but the http password field

The customer does not want to replicate the http password field on some servers

- They tried doing this using a selective replica using the field option, but got an error "Field is too large (32k) or View's column & selection formulas are too large" reported in SPR # NKEYB5GB7G, support have advised that having a selective replica of the Domino Directory would not be a recommended step. Selective replicas of the Domino Directory are used for configuration purposes to create directory servers as per https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSKTMJ_9.0.1/admin/plan_usingdirectoryserversinadominodomain_t.html support recommended using xACL to achieve this.

- They do not wish to do this via the xACL, so they are looking for another method top do this.

  • Avatar32.5fb70cce7410889e661286fd7f1897de Guest
  • Oct 26 2018
  • Will not implement
  • Attach files
  • Avatar40.8f183f721a2c86cd98fddbbe6dc46ec9
    Guest commented
    October 28, 2018 16:58

    Can you describe the use case behind this request in more detail? What are they trying to achieve? Why do they not want to replicate that field?

  • Admin
    Thomas Hampel commented
    November 02, 2018 21:53

    The directory catalog can provide this capability. You can define which fields you want to have consolidated into the new directory. However, I think this case has been resolved by looking at the overall customer architecture and understanding why this feature is requested.

  • Admin
    Thomas Hampel commented
    November 17, 2018 20:56

    This is no longer required - see SPR # RGAU9VLHT3