Frank Boehme wrote:
>
> Emiliano wrote:
>
> > The too many connections problem has been solved. As long as you use
> > MidgardDatabase databasename commonuser commonpass
> > it will only open one connection.
>
> I didn't know that...
It's new since b6 I think. Only one is not fully correct, btw: database
connections can only persist per apache handler. Each apache handler
will
only open a single database connection for each unique username/password
combo at first request to the associated virtualhost. So if you use
different databases but the same username/pass everywhere you will have
exactly the same number active apache handler processes as open
databases.
In any case, it will be the absolute minimum possible while still having
the database connections persist.
The upside: you can give each user a separate username/pass to access
his own database. This user/pass will obviously be different from what
Midgard uses to access the site.
The downside: multidb breaks a number of pretty important Asgard
features,
and we don't know if we're going to get around that. So in the meantime
Asgard still requires sitegroups.
> > That won't work. Asgard needs to be in the same database with the site
> > being managed.
>
> GOSH!!!! I never knew that! It is obious to me that sites with the same
> (virtual) hostname and different prefix need to be in one db, but asgard
> and another site...?
Asgard is an SG0-targeted site. In an pre-sitegroup the admin site was
in the same database as the production site too.
If we manage to rewrite parts of Asgard for multidb, or manage to
reimplement the
multidb bits that Asgard need, what you wanted is the best scenario.
> How come that all these folks test and write about asgard? Repligard
> does no work fully, I believe. Thus, there is no reliable way to add a
> host and its dependant objects to an exisiting db. Are they all building
> new sites?
Alexander is working on the last bits to allow in-place updating of
things
like Asgard. The schedule says we get to enjoy that tomorrow. Right now
people are only building new sites with Asgard, I think.
Another option is to use the filetemplated admin site. Filetemplates
aren't
Asgard-compatible either but the framed admin is rather agreeable,
especially
if you're using a recent IE.
It all depends on your timeframe, I guess. Asgard is _sweet_ though.
Emile
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
