I am evaluating Umbraco for a project and it looks like it will meet all of my standard needs. However, I do have an idea that it would be useful if some of the experts on here could tell me if it was remotely possible.
Basically, we have a requirement for a number of sites to be running on separate instances of Umbraco but with the ability to access, edit and display some shared content.
I thought of a couple of ways this could potentially be accomplished:
Dedicated SQL database for shared content with custom tree added to each site to display/edit/add relevant content
Additional Umbraco installation with a filtered content tree for this site added to the other sites
The first is probably easier to accomplish, however the second if possible would allow the additional shared content to be able centrally managed and aggregated.
I would really appreciate anyone's thoughts on this and if you think either is possible?
I am pretty sure that the Umbraco 8 content tree works the same as previous versions in that there is a single instance of it in the database regardless of how it is visually defined in the back end editing interface.
You could do what you are suggesting if you had a single instance of Umbraco hosting multiple sites however this very quickly becomes messy with the configuration and content of one site affecting other sites.
A simple but bad option is to have a separate instance of Umbraco for shared content and to include this content in an iframe. Iframes are bad for accessibility, usability, presentation (especially for liquid layout sites) and security.
A less simple alternative is to also have a separate instance of Umbraco that hosts the shared content and for the content from this shared instance to be requested by each site's template code and injected into the pages as required. This requires a little coding and as long as the content does not require content delivered through POST requests can work very seamlessly. A slight variation on such an approach would be to use JavaScript to pull the content in, however this is a very bad idea for accessibility, stability, usability and maintainability reasons.
Share content between Umbraco instances
Good morning
I am evaluating Umbraco for a project and it looks like it will meet all of my standard needs. However, I do have an idea that it would be useful if some of the experts on here could tell me if it was remotely possible.
Basically, we have a requirement for a number of sites to be running on separate instances of Umbraco but with the ability to access, edit and display some shared content.
I thought of a couple of ways this could potentially be accomplished:
The first is probably easier to accomplish, however the second if possible would allow the additional shared content to be able centrally managed and aggregated.
I would really appreciate anyone's thoughts on this and if you think either is possible?
Thanks in advance
Danny
I am pretty sure that the Umbraco 8 content tree works the same as previous versions in that there is a single instance of it in the database regardless of how it is visually defined in the back end editing interface.
You could do what you are suggesting if you had a single instance of Umbraco hosting multiple sites however this very quickly becomes messy with the configuration and content of one site affecting other sites.
A simple but bad option is to have a separate instance of Umbraco for shared content and to include this content in an iframe. Iframes are bad for accessibility, usability, presentation (especially for liquid layout sites) and security.
A less simple alternative is to also have a separate instance of Umbraco that hosts the shared content and for the content from this shared instance to be requested by each site's template code and injected into the pages as required. This requires a little coding and as long as the content does not require content delivered through POST requests can work very seamlessly. A slight variation on such an approach would be to use JavaScript to pull the content in, however this is a very bad idea for accessibility, stability, usability and maintainability reasons.
is working on a reply...