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