Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    text
    copied!<p>I believe the benefits of isolating your concerns into separate apps outweigh the costs. I would probably start off with just 2 apps (one for the main site and superadmin, one for the client sites and admins), accessing the same database, but you could do 4.</p> <p>The downside is you don't really have isolation since all your apps are tied to one database. You will eventually run into scaling problems with your database, but starting off simple with one database will get you launched. One strategy for scaling later would be to add a slave db that the client site and main site apps use, while the admin apps use the master db. This along with a TON of caching will get you pretty far.</p> <p>There is nothing wrong with having multiple rails apps access one db, however you will need a way to share common code across your apps. Your models for the most part. I've done this before by tossing all my models in a plugin that I share as a sub-module in git or as an external in svn. Having separate apps will make each app smaller and easier to maintain.</p> <p>However, where do you keep your migrations? Where do you test your models? I would opt for the superadmin app. Also, you make a change to a model or the schema, and now you have to check 2-4 apps and make sure they still work!</p> <p>Better isolation, separate db's and inter-app communication through web APIs (SOA) and you don't have to worry about that. SOA I think is the way to go after a certain point, but SOA might be premature when you first start out.</p> <p>At any rate, having separate apps sets you up for SOA but you don't have to jump beyond a single db to start.</p>
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload