Hi Ruth, Multitenancy has several benefits:
- Maintenance You can do maintenance and upgrades once, rather than repeating that effort for each customer. - Resource usage Entirely separate instances of OFBiz require entirely separate Java Virtual Machines. Multitenancy makes more efficient use of resources like RAM. That matters if you're hosting on a cloud or virtual private server. Cheers Paul Foxworthy Ruth Hoffman-2 wrote > > Hi Pierre: > > I understand the premise. I don't understand the value proposition. I > just don't see how this is any better than separate instances. Just > wondered if anyone has done an ROI comparing the two approaches. My > analysis suggests that the OFBiz implementation may not be the best way > to achieve true multitenancy. I'm wanting to know if anyone has data to > prove me wrong. > > Best Regards > Ruth > > On 1/27/12 10:31 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: >> Hi Ruth, >> >> For an explanation on multi-tenancy see >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitenancy. >> >> OFBiz does handle specific tenant usage with that datasets for each >> tenant >> can be customer specific and with regards of provision of hot-deploy >> applications each application can be made available to the tenants >> through >> the security model. >> >> With regards, >> >> Pierre Smits >> >> 2012/1/27 Ruth Hoffman<rhoffman@> >> >>> Hi Hans, et al. >>> Could someone take a few minutes and explain to me the value of OFBiz >>> multi-tenancy? Why not just use SVN or other tool specifically designed >>> to >>> manage multiple versions of a project where a project is an OFBiz >>> tenant. >>> The problem as I see it is that the OFBiz multi-tenant implementation >>> does >>> not include the concept of a "landlord". Nor does it have any notion of >>> how >>> to handle specific tenant useage. It assumes that all tenants are equal >>> and >>> have the same system level requirements. Are they? Maybe I just don't >>> understand the use-case for it. >>> >>> Han's example is just one of the challenges presented when using this >>> approach to host multiple "tenants". >>> >>> Thanks much. >>> Ruth >>> >>> >>> On 1/27/12 1:40 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>> >>>> Problem: >>>> ------------ >>>> 1. If you would like to have different tenants on your system and want >>>> to >>>> have different property settings for each tenant laike language or >>>> currency >>>> etc, that is currently not supported. >>>> 2. the properties are not very well organized, to say the least. >>>> >>>> Proposal: >>>> ------------ >>>> 1. create the following entity SystemProperty with fields: >>>> systemPropertyId(key) >>>> parentSystemPropertyId >>>> description >>>> ofbizPropertyName(index) >>>> systemPropertyValue >>>> >>>> Initially load the systemPropertyid from the ofbiz propertyId so >>>> accounting.fixedasset.**autocreate=Y will have 3 records using the >>>> parent id but only the lowest level will have the >>>> accounting.fixedasset.* >>>> *autocreate name and value=Y >>>> >>>> when we have this working we can slowly reorganize these records >>>> without >>>> having to change the programs. >>>> >>>> 2. add the delegator parameter to the getPropertyValue method and >>>> change >>>> the method system wide. >>>> the getPropertyValue method will first look in this entity with the >>>> provided delegator and when the property is null or not found, use the >>>> properties file property as currently is done. >>>> 3. resolve anywhere where this method is called and where the delegator >>>> is not available. >>>> 4. add a webtools option to set the properties. >>>> >>>> Please provide comments or counter proposals...... >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Hans >>>> >>>> > -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/proposal-overriding-property-setting-per-tenant-tp4332720p4337667.html Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
