Hi,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> ...I think a full example would really help...
I now have a reasonably working prototype, details at SLING-4386 in
the "Working proof of concept, February 5th, 2015" section.
It shows how content from different tenants is rendered b
Hi Alex,
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Alexander Saar
wrote:
>...one question I asked myself
> is if it wouldn't make sense to move the actual /content also under the
> respective /tenants/T/content. Then we would have everything in one place
> which may make access control and isolation event
Hi Bertrand,
this may be something for the next version, but one question I asked myself
is if it wouldn't make sense to move the actual /content also under the
respective /tenants/T/content. Then we would have everything in one place
which may make access control and isolation event easier.
Alex
Hi Stefan,
Thanks for your feedback!
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Stefan Seifert wrote:
> ...* multi tenant scenario
> - what you describe is a solution for the "virtual hosting" multi-tenant
> scenario as described here https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/So2uAg
> - if this should be usab
January 27, 2015 6:55 PM
>To: dev
>Subject: [RT] Ideas for a multi-tenant and multi-module content model
>
>Hi,
>
>I've been thinking a lot about a content model that would help Sling
>applications be naturally friendly to multi-tenancy and to continuous
>deployment where mult
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> ...yes, I think a full example would really help - I think the changes for
> script resolution go in the same direction as a prototype I did long
> time ago (just need to find the code)
Cool, I'm hoping to have some working code
Thanks Bertrand for taking this up,
Am 30.01.15 um 14:19 schrieb Alexander Saar:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for sharing this. The approach sounds reasonable, but it would
> probably help to have a more concrete example for the content structure
> including the resource type mappings.
yes, I think a full e
Hi,
thanks for sharing this. The approach sounds reasonable, but it would
probably help to have a more concrete example for the content structure
including the resource type mappings.
Will /tenant/T/home only contain groups used define tenant membership? Or
will it also contain the actual users?
Hi Bertrand,
ok the way how you describe it you'd actually do something "above" the
existing ResourceResolution. I'm not really sure if we win so much with
that - a lock in of the resourceType might be absolutely sufficient and
wouldn't add further complexity to understand resolution mechanisms.
Hi Dominik,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Dominik Süß wrote:
> ...I had a chance to look at that model yesterday and absolutely think this is
> a great way since it is not too far away from what we have right now...
Yeah, we might even be able to run an existing Sling instance with
/libs and
Hi Bertrand,
I had a chance to look at that model yesterday and absolutely think this is
a great way since it is not too far away from what we have right now and
what could be seen as best practice for compositing and customizing
applications based on Sling and other propietary "modules".
I think
Hi,
I've been thinking a lot about a content model that would help Sling
applications be naturally friendly to multi-tenancy and to continuous
deployment where multiple versions of modules need to coexist.
I have now written those thoughts down at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SLING
12 matches
Mail list logo
