I know you used the web.xml to put in virtual host, but I opted to us
the website entity for the same reason of tenants. this does not effect
the trunk, but would conflict if websites were removed in commits.

I hope what ever your doing take tenants into account.
How ever a Tenant data load would allow for both to exist.
That is where I put my tenant specific stuff.

Hans Bakker sent the following on 8/2/2011 12:19 AM:
> I looked in the emaillist history and the only reason that came up is
> the definition of the theme. (i missed that thread)
> 
> However,
> most webapps are backend applications which can use the general
> properties file when the website record is missing.
> 
> The reason i want it removed is that in a production environment the
> website list is pretty long so it is difficult to find a website which
> is really used.
> 
> Therefore my proposal to remove the website records for all back end
> webapplications and the trunk front end should be demo data.
> 
> Regards,
> Hans
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 00:11 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
>> I ask this on the Dev a few months ago, Erwan de FERRIERES told me this
>> is why.
>> I am assuming that in a tenant mode this adds more flexibility.
>>
>> Hans Bakker sent the following on 8/1/2011 10:52 PM:
>>> We have a default theme in general.properties so website record not
>>> mandatory?
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 22:19 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>> <WebSite webSiteId="MARKETING" siteName="Marketing Manager"
>>>> visualThemeSetId="BACKOFFICE"/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hans Bakker sent the following on 8/1/2011 8:38 PM:
>>>>> We are now using the content part of the system more and more and are
>>>>> wondering why every webapp has its website?
>>>>>
>>>>> I deleted in webtools the website for accounting and everything seems to
>>>>> be still working ok.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there are no good reasons to keep it i would like to suggest to
>>>>> remove all these websites except for cmssite, WebStore and WebStoreClone
>>>>> and move these to the demo data.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>
> 

Reply via email to