I’m currently trying to upgrade a project from Liferay 7.4.3.112 to Liferay DXP 2026.Q1 LTS (Free Tier).
The target setup required by my client is:
-
JBoss EAP 8.0 for production, although I am using the Tomcat bundle for development
-
SQL Server
-
Java 21
In Liferay CE, SQL Server was not officially supported, but we were always able to make it work by providing a custom DB Factory. I tried the same approach here: I recompiled the DB Factory and placed the jar in the shielded container lib folder.
With this setup, Liferay is able to start, connect to SQL Server, run the upgrade successfully, and also verify the Free Tier license. However, after startup, when I try to access the home page, I am redirected to a license validation page with an error saying that SQL Server is not supported and that I should use one of the following databases: Hypersonic, MariaDB, MySQL, or PostgreSQL.
At first I searched the GitHub source code for the error message, but I could not find it anywhere. I then searched through the jars included in the bundle and found the string in:
com/liferay/portal/ee/license/c.class
So it appears that the distributed bundle contains license-checking code that is not present in the published GitHub source, and that this code is preventing the use of SQL Server even when a custom DB Factory is provided.
My question is: is this intentional?
If support for this approach has been removed in Free Tier, I need to give my client a clear answer and advise them either to:
-
purchase a DXP subscription, or
-
move to a different database.
So far I have received general reassurance that the core capabilities previously available in CE are still available, but this specific case seems to indicate otherwise.
I would appreciate a definitive clarification on whether this is an intentional product restriction in Free Tier, or an unintended interaction that may be addressed.
Also I would like to know if there may be other restrictions related to the production environment described above (i.e. Jboss), since I have not been able to trace any hint of this behaviour in the published list of breaking changes.
Thanks,
Alessandro