*bump* Seriously - anyone have any ideas?
On Oct 8, 11:46 am, barbara shaurette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, that's been suggested ... and considered. The problem is > that these two initial projects aren't going to be the only ones. > There will be more sites in the future, all slightly different, but > all sharing this common type of content. And putting *all* of them on > the same database is, alas, just not scalable. > > On Oct 8, 11:21 am, Carl Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 8, 12:47 pm, barbara shaurette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We're building a couple of different projects - one social network-y > > > site, and one that's bloglike. So each has its own unique database, > > > but they do share one common set of content. > > > You'll almost certainly have better luck having the two sites share > > the same database, and use the Sites framework where needed to > > distinguish content for only one or the other, than trying to hack > > some solution with two separate DBs and a third shared one. > > > Carl --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
