[geeklog-devel] GL2 and site relationships

[Tony Bibbs]

Vincent Furia wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 12:54:13 -0600, Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Let me try explaining this another way.
>>
>>The first relationship would be independent.  In 1.3.x there is no way
>>to do this.  If you want two unrelated sites running under the same
>>database...forget about it.  In this the sites are truly separate with
>>their own users, their own groups, own content.
>>
>>    
>>
>I thought this could be done in 1.3.x by changing the table prefix? 
>Are you talking independent sites sharing the same tables?  
>
Correct.

>I don't
>think that would be a good idea.
>  
>
Depends on the scenario.  Take, for example, a company wanting to do 
cobranded stuff...where basically two sites share basic features but are 
wrapped in their own look and feels.  The Insurance Industry would be a 
good example of this.  I'm not advocating this, I'm simply saying it was 
something that I have noted as being a requirement and if we still want 
to support this notion it would need to happen sooner than later given 
the impact it would have on the data model.

> 
>I know one requested thing not currently supported  in 1.3.x is to use
>a single GL installation to run multiple sites with independent
>databases (different physical databases or different table prefixes). 
>I can see how this would make an admins life much easier when
>upgrading GL or installing plugins (which could be installed on all
>the sites, but enabled per site)...
>  
>
I agree with you on this.  Definitely worth it.

>I think this could be best accomplished by a Web Application plugin
>that would allow "items" to be cross submitted to several sites.  Such
>a system wouldn't even depend on the sites being on the same server. 
>While implementing this may be a little difficult, as there are many
>complexities involved, I think implementing this later rather than
>sooner would be OK.  Such a plugin could eventually give the ability
>to submit items (and do other tasks?) through interfaces besides the
>web.
>  
>
Blah, maybe we just web service this stuff that way we don't care

--Tony