I am really interested in the Multiple Site Manager, but I think I can’t split up the modules, can I? I am thinking of the mailing list but also some extensions.
Most of my clients are fanatic mailinglist users whether it’s proper to do that or not. However, if I can’t split the mailing list, that would mean that they could use each other s lists. Also, some like to have some WYSIWYG editor, while others do not.
So can this be site dependent, or does this still need separate installs? If so, this would mean to me that the MSM is not fit for different clients on the same installation (at least if they use some modules).
noregt, I don’t quite get your question, but I think that Leslie may have already answered that particular question here. The link will take you right down to his post, where he addresses a question re: using MSM to manage the sites of various clients. I hope this helps; forgive me if I’m way off.
Its not meant to provide hosting services to 3rd parties
But then you’re talking about licensing and hosting. It’s more that you can keep the CP separated for members adressing different weblogs.
This should then also affect the communicate panel where you should only be able to address the mailing lists that belong to your weblog.
As I don’t understand that concept behind your enterprise (are they all your websites, or are they websites that you have provided for clients of yours?), I can’t really offer any useful advice on the subject. I will leave you with this until someone far more knowledgeable than I stops by to answer your question:
Agnostic as used here means that the modules are not committed to any particular site. This allows your sites to all have access to all of the modules installed. Currently, noregt, that means that yes, all mailing lists would be available in the Communicate section. In most cases, this is going to be the desired thing, since most people using MSM are using it for related internet properties. It also keeps it functioning the way it would have if you have been running these sites from a single installation the old way, where nothing was separated at all. Are you using a single installation now, or separate installations?
Thanks Derek, I did have one installation in the past, but converted to separate installations because of the mailing and the Tiny MCE settings that some want. I liked the fact that I just had to do ONE backup and upgrade. Now I have to do different database backups and upgrades although I placed them on the same server. the main thing would be to save time upgrading, backuping and problem solving
Regarding MSM, EE1.6, and the Photo Gallery Module, is it possible to restrict access and viewing of photo galleries on a per site basis? For example, if I have two sites each with their own gallery, will the MSM/EE1.6 combination allow me to prevent authorized editors of the Photo Gallery for site A from seeing/accessing the administrative parts of the photo gallery of site B?
No, again, the modules are agnostic, so if someone has access to the Gallery module control panel, they will have access to all of the galleries. It may be better suited for you in such a situation to use weblogs for the “galleries”.
Yes, each has distinct advantages over the other, and it will depend on your needs as to whether or not it would be able to suit you. I would suggest searching these forums for posts regarding using the weblog module for photo galleries. There are many users who do this, and have some rather clever implementations.
We are having the same problems with the gallery module. We have franchises so each new country we start we just duplicate the site. But i dont want other users to be able to access galleries of other countries.
Your suggestion to use a weblog is not really an option.
Do you have better ideas on this? It should be possible to keep information in the modules seperated between sites? If not then i dont understand the point of the MSM.
I can’t really explain it much clearer than I did here. Module agnosticism is by design. If we did it the other way, I guarantee you that people would be complaining that sites didn’t share modules.
That said, it is entirely up to the developer if a module takes specific advantage of MSM. The Discussion Forum module, for instance, has “Boards” which you can assign to a given site. So for your specific needs, the Gallery Module is what is falling short, not MSM. The Gallery module is a very simple image gallery, designed originally for hobby sites, bloggers, and light professional use, which is why it is a free included module in all licensed versions. Why is using weblogs not an adequate option for you?
Ofcourse i understand its the responsability of the module to share data or not. But this could be an option in every module no?
Its just a thought… but you are correct we will just use a blog it only means more work for us