On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 19:55 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 10:33:20PM -0000, Simon Birtwistle wrote: > > > Karsten, > > > I thought we would be able to use a single instance and have different > > > domain names point at different "groups". Have multiple instances to > > > do the same thing seems a waste, IMO. > > IIRC, we discussed this earlier in the process, whether Zikula could > handle virtualhosting-like situations. In general, if one monolithing > framework can handle the multiple slices and serving of sub-domains, > that's fine with me. > > However, the way I understand our Infrastructure to work, it may not > be much more burden to run multiple instances. Puppet is going to > manage configurations regardless, etc. > > > There are a couple of technical issues with single-instance. > > > > 1. Caching strategies - will certainly be different for the almost entirely > > static docs/www subdomains to the more user-oriented docs site. > > This is true, although I thought we cached by sub-domain so it could > do it separately if the Zikula instance were serving different > sub-domains. > > > 2. Zikula doesn't currently support subdomains running on the same set of > > files (though it's easily achieved through symlinks) - and would they use > > the same database, or a different database? If you use different databases > > with the same files then upgrades become a hassle > > Interesting. For the reasons I say below, I would guess different. > > > 3. Striping/server separation - e.g. if the magazine / docs / wherever else > > are on different physical servers for load or any other reason. > > IIUC, this is true -- Infrastructure can more effectively scale > sub-domains that are unique to the host. > > > 4. Rolling out new features / fixing problems in general - you don't want a > > problem adding a new blogging module on the magazine site to take your www > > offline through some freak accident. > > I'm also not clear if there is an intersect between the two content > types. Is there ever going to be a reason to have content migrate > from magazine.fp.o to docs.fp.o? Are we going to share processes and > workflows? > > It doesn't seem like it to me right now, although that might be a > bridge we want to cross in the future. > > This comes up similarly for the knowledgebase idea. Is > e.g. kbase.fedoraproject.org a separate CMS or a part of docs.fp.o? > > Since the content types are again different (very short, focused, > versioned articles v. longer guides maintained across versions), it's > probable that having the kbase and docs CMS in the same instance > wouldn't matter. > Are separate domains/subdomains really necessary? Perhaps (and I am not sure if Zikula already supports this) we can put "projects" under a URL hierarchy rather than individual domains or subdomains. I know that one of the slowest things I experience on a daily basis is having to look up a new domain or subdomain name. ________________________________________________________________________ Basil Mohamed Gohar abu_hurayrah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.basilgohar.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
