Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
#5529 closed enhancement (no action required)
BuddyPress + Multisite
Reported by: |
|
Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Milestone: | Priority: | normal | |
Severity: | normal | Version: | 1.9.2 |
Component: | Core | Keywords: | dev-feedback |
Cc: |
Description
I have been messing with BP and MS and the current method is to use multi network with only one site on each network. Is this method better for db efficiency or was it just the quickest/easiest set up available?
Would using something like this be better for all bp tables when a new site is created? http://codex.buddypress.org/getting-started/guides/segregated-x-profile-fields-for-multisite/
Another option I tried was adding blog id meta to all content and then filter loops but that seems wrong.
Ideas? Thoughts?
Change History (2)
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
I don't think it makes a difference for db efficiency. At a glance, it has more to do with the various ways in which the concept of a "network" is baked into BuddyPress. Take, for instance, the
is_super_admin()
andcurrent_user_can( 'bp_moderate' )
checks throughout BP. These are network-specific, because of the way that WP works. We have also had concerns about interface: in the case of separate networks, everything is totally segregated - just network-activate BP in the networks where you want it. If you were to attempt to put BP on multiple sites in a single network, you'd need an interface for setting this up, along with separate interfaces for Groups and Activity admin, etc.So, I don't think there's any overarching technical reason why multisite BP can't be done. It's just that there are lots of little problems that would need to be addressed to make it viable.
From a technical point of view, the basic technique would be something like what's at the bottom of that codex page - just swap out the db table names as necessary. You'd have to do something similar for all BP-related settings and usermeta as well. Then, you'd have to ensure that the Dashboard interfaces work as expected.
If this answers your question (and your general request is the same as #4732), let's close this one as a duplicate. If you come up with some concrete suggestions, we can use that ticket.