On Sep 6, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Peter Michaux wrote: > On 9/6/06, John Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I guess we could keep a plugin repository using subversion and keep >> that up to date, but we'd then have to suck changes into our working >> SCM, darcs. Which might not be too too bad. > > No different than if you could get the engines as a tar ball. > > >> They are. The only thing that bothers me is that we are looking for a >> way to host multiple sites on one physical app, which we are thinking >> of deploying as an engine to a bunch of application stubs. I'm not >> sure we're using Engines in the right way here, but it would probably >> beat dynamically switching the database connection, etc. > > Do the separate sites have anything shared in the database? If they > are sharing the same database then engines might not be the way to go.
There might be groups of sites sharing a single database, but these would also be sharing the same stub. > > If they really are distinct apps (eg online stores with separate > owners) then engines could be a great way to go. They may. Doesn't it feel a bit heave to basically package everything but the config/cache/etc into an engine though? Maybe not, just wondering ... > > I think the most important things about engines is choosing the right > time to use them. true dat > > Peter > _______________________________________________ > engine-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.rails-engines.org/listinfo.cgi/engine-users-rails- > engines.org _______________________________________________ engine-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rails-engines.org/listinfo.cgi/engine-users-rails-engines.org
