Having fun learning Umbraco at the moment. Have successfully created a few separate websites running on a single instance of Umbraco.
All working fine so far, because the sites are basic content/media.
For the editors of the sites I've created, I've simply given access to the "Content" and "Media" tabs, starting at the top-level node of their own site - which has worked fine.
However, a site I'm working on at the moment requires a private "members only" area, so I wish to offer the administrator of this site access to the "Members" tab.
It seems that if I open up the "Members" tab, the editor of the site will be able to edit/view all member accounts that have been created across the entire instance of Umbraco. Just checking to see whether there's a way to support multiple sets of members so each site in a multi-site installation can have its own?
If not, I guess the approach required is to setup a separate instance of Umbraco for this one site?
well, basic rule of thumb, if sites are unrelated (as in, for different clients) -> use multiple umbraco instances for each of your clients, and keep client related sites in either a single (if basic) or multiple instances (if large-ish)
with that being said, you could always override the default member section tree display by creating your own tree implementation. If you don't mind getting your hands dirty doing some c# coding, just download the code for umbraco ,check how the member tree is being rendered and build a similar one to replace the default implemenation. (be aware you'll need to change/add some db records as well - umbracoApp and umbracoAppTree tables).
Another thing to keep in mind is you need to differentiate the member based on the site they're member of. Probably using a custom property on the member type which you can set once a member registers on the site.
And now up to you to decide, go for the easy solution and split up the sites in different umbraco instances or get your hands dirty.
Multi-site query on Memberships
Hi all,
Having fun learning Umbraco at the moment. Have successfully created a few separate websites running on a single instance of Umbraco.
All working fine so far, because the sites are basic content/media.
For the editors of the sites I've created, I've simply given access to the "Content" and "Media" tabs, starting at the top-level node of their own site - which has worked fine.
However, a site I'm working on at the moment requires a private "members only" area, so I wish to offer the administrator of this site access to the "Members" tab.
It seems that if I open up the "Members" tab, the editor of the site will be able to edit/view all member accounts that have been created across the entire instance of Umbraco. Just checking to see whether there's a way to support multiple sets of members so each site in a multi-site installation can have its own?
If not, I guess the approach required is to setup a separate instance of Umbraco for this one site?
Thanks in advance,
Steve.
well, basic rule of thumb, if sites are unrelated (as in, for different clients) -> use multiple umbraco instances for each of your clients, and keep client related sites in either a single (if basic) or multiple instances (if large-ish)
with that being said, you could always override the default member section tree display by creating your own tree implementation. If you don't mind getting your hands dirty doing some c# coding, just download the code for umbraco ,check how the member tree is being rendered and build a similar one to replace the default implemenation. (be aware you'll need to change/add some db records as well - umbracoApp and umbracoAppTree tables).
Another thing to keep in mind is you need to differentiate the member based on the site they're member of. Probably using a custom property on the member type which you can set once a member registers on the site.
And now up to you to decide, go for the easy solution and split up the sites in different umbraco instances or get your hands dirty.
Keep us posted about your progress.
Cheers,
/Dirk
is working on a reply...