On Sep 9, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Will Scheidegger wrote: > - Multiple sites > this is my 5% where I don't agree. We'r already loosing > against PHP hosting with Java solutions (money-wise). If we need to run each > small STK site in 2 magnolia instances of their own, we definitely our out of > the game for small customers. Currently we're running up to 20 and more sites > in one Magnolia (JSP-Sites). And we're doing all new sites in STK.
Unfortunately this is nothing we can tackle from our side. Multi-site is a huge value proposition for large customers, especially because it comes with a whole set of complexities. What you *really* mean here is a multi-tenant solution, which is a different business-, although technically related problem. In a multi-tenant solution, you don't share templates, you don't share users, you don't share content etc. All you share is the hardware and the request app server. This is each site in its sandbox. In a multi-site scenario, you must be able to share and manage arbitrary content, templates, users… whatever. But at the same time you need to ensure specific access rights etc. There is a lot of complexity there. From a business perspective, multi-tenancy is not interesting for Magnolia. If we'd have multi-tenancy, we would probably make it CE exactly for this reason - cool for small sites, good to compete against php solutions. But we don't have multi-tenancy. We have multi-site. Side note: Our goal is that we enable, entice and empower the community enough to add features they find interesting for their use cases. Magnolia 5 will make this much easier. - Boris ---------------------------------------------------------------- For list details see http://www.magnolia-cms.com/community/mailing-lists.html To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[email protected]> ----------------------------------------------------------------
