On 18.08.2010, at 16:13, Josh French wrote:

> On Aug 18, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Haselwanter Edmund wrote:
> 
>> For me the most important point is on how is the future and "glue" to 
>> radiant core. That's why I asked on the state of core discussions.
> 
> In that case I would prefer Vhost. Its approach is closer to what we've 
> talked about for core inclusion, which may make it easier to upgrade to a 
> hypothetical future core release that provides its own multi-domain 
> functionality.

hypothetical. I like this phrase ;-)

> If you went with MultiSite you'd probably end up either tweaking your other 
> extensions or installing MultiSite-specific forks, like the Paperclipped 
> fork. Once you do that, you limit your upgrade options.

Hm. If I understand it correctly vhost relies on a site_id column at each 
extension model, right? So I would have to add custom migrations to all used 
extensions.

> MultiSite is also meant to run several domains that share as much as possible 
> -- including the admin interface (one client, multiple domains.) So if your 
> sites are independently operated, Vhost is more appropriate anyway.

ah, ok. this makes it more clear to me.

cu edi
--
DI Edmund Haselwanter, edm...@haselwanter.com, http://edmund.haselwanter.com/
http://www.iteh.at | http://facebook.com/iTeh.solutions | 
http://at.linkedin.com/in/haselwanteredmund 





Reply via email to