On 6 Jan, Brian Smith wrote:
> I'm a developer with a small design firm in Birmingham, Alabama. I
> would like to use a framework such as yours to design sites for our
> customers so that I can then create some sort of user accounts which
> would enable the clients to maintain their content.
This shouldn't present any problems, Midgard's approach to
content management and group permissions has been designed
for scenarios like the one you describe.
Easiest way to do this is to create at least one group
for each customer site you have, assign that group the
ownership of content (plus layout and structure if you
want) for that site, or parts of it, and create
appropriate user accounts for that group. If you want
more fine-grained access control for parts of a site,
that is also possible with the same mechanism.
After this, you can either provide your customers
access to your Admin site or a customized administration
interface.
At my employer we have an organization of almost 400
people accessing and modifying the content of our Intranet
and external sites using this method (we have a customized
content management interface to make things easier for them),
and I've yet to see any problems in enabling/restricting
modification access of a particular content area. We also
utilize Midgard's approval mechanism heavily for content
validation before it is replicated to our external servers.
However, I think using these mechanisms will also benefit
smaller organizations as the effort needed for putting
the system up is relatively small.
> Secon, could I use one Midgard install/database for multiple
> domains, or would each domain need an installation of Midgard?
You can serve many sites from the single database.
We're using this method for serving a dozen sites
on the Midgard Project's server without problems.
The setback here is that with Midgard 1.2.x's lack
of real read-level access control everybody who has
access to the Admin site can see all content there.
Of course you can work around this by customizing
your Admin site or creating a completely different
interface to your customers. I believe most Midgard
users follow this approach.
Another option is to have several instances of
Midgard running. This method has the advantage
that it really separates content of different sites
(or site groups), but it also is a bit expensive
on performance.
> We are currently running NT 4.0, IIS 4. I will get MySql for Win32
> soon, and we also hope to install two Linux boxes (one for web server,
> one for db server) soon.
Midgard runs on Linux very nicely. There is also
a Windows NT port coming, provided by the Open Server
Architecture project (http://www.opensa.org) but
by what I know it ain't quite ready yet for production
use.
> Finally, once I get this going, I would like to participate in
> development if I can help.
Sure! The Midgard community is working very actively
on improving the system, and there is always space
for people who wish to work on the core system, write
documentation, or make the Administration and example
sites that ship with Midgard more usable, or contribute
to the project in some other way.
Oh, and if you have any other questions, just ask!
> Brian Smith
/Bergie
--
-- Henri Bergius -- +358 40 525 1334 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
http://www.iki.fi/Henri.Bergius
--
This is The Midgard Project's mailing list. For more information,
please visit the project's web site at http://www.midgard-project.org
To unsubscribe the list, send an empty email message to address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
