# Is it intended that CMS's object definitions to be  different from normal object's ?

**URL:** <https://discuss.liferay.com/t/is-it-intended-that-cmss-object-definitions-to-be-different-from-normal-objects/482>\
**Category:** Development\
**Tags:** cms\
**Created:** [March 31, 2026, 5:30am UTC](https://discuss.liferay.com/t/is-it-intended-that-cmss-object-definitions-to-be-different-from-normal-objects/482 "2026-03-31T05:30:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lockandfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e99b99/32.png) [@lockandfire](https://discuss.liferay.com/u/lockandfire)\
**Post date:** [March 31, 2026, 5:30am UTC](https://discuss.liferay.com/t/is-it-intended-that-cmss-object-definitions-to-be-different-from-normal-objects/482/1 "2026-03-31T05:30:36Z")

</div>

Hello, we have observed that, for example, if we define a normal object called ‘TestObject’, with a ‘nonLocalizedTxt’ text field and a ‘localizedTxt’ text field, these two fields would be created as columns in the following tables:

- O\_[companyid]\_TestObject.nonLocalizedTxt
- O\_[companyid]\_TestObject\_l.localizedTxt

However, if we create a CMS content definition called ‘TestContent’ with with a ‘nonLocalizedTxt’ text field and a ‘localizedTxt’ text field, the columns are created as follows:

- O\_[companyid]\_TestContent\_l.localizedTxt
- O\_[companyid]\_TestContent\_x.nonLocalizedTxt

We believe that in the original Object definition tables, `_x` is used to create `Custom Field` like columns of system objects which could not be modified by users. But for CMS objects they are used to store non-localized fields. Is this change a intended behavior? Thanks.