CMS + Fedora Magazine

[Basil Mohamed Gohar]

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 at hidayahonline.org
www.basilgohar.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20090206/1edea1fc/attachment.sig>