Hello Edwin,

Of course, the only interest in your postings above, and all other postings, is to seriously help me out and no other. The example given above on creating SQL VIEWS was merely to contradict you and demonstrate there is only category_id in that table and had nothing to do with article_id, which you mentioned in your posting above.

The above SQL query for creating views is merely an example for someone else, like you and myself, who has sufficient knowledge to grasp fundamentals. Thats it. Then one could take this approach to do all necessary, at their own risks.

I am not commencing any sharing on slave websites today. I use it since many years now. Of course, I have done all necessary and shared all tables and directories, not today but, before half a decade. All works fine.

I am not sharing templates directory. I wish I could because it is possible to have different *.ini or *css files based on domains. This, I copies templates dir and I did not care about the loss of SSD webspace. But to have site_id, it is a bit complicated to have it in templates available the way I want.

So any discussion you made, or will make in future, will never help me. My installation is very specific to my ideas and concepts. I only came here to give you some feedback based upon my competence and expertise as well as give you some stimulation and motivation to develop multisite extension further. No more and no less. In this process, I got entangled with personal discussions and things about my installation, which is not necessary.

I also believe that you will ask more money from clients when Joomla 4 comes out.

Thus, I have already an interest to develop shell scripts and have some sharing of tables, etc. for Joomla 4 to generate slave sites and do all needful without JMS extension and achieve the same, without hacking the core, which JMS does.

JMS has been a comfortable tool to generate configuration.php and create links. I could do this all by myself without any help from php code. This is what I plan to do in the next months as I failed to convince you on certain conceptual matters here in my postings.

I will see if I could publish on Github my shell scripts for creation of slave sites.

Sorry to tell you that in your previous post, you didn't warn the readers that doing such kind of category sharing will cause inconsistencies.
Now you accept the fact that this create inconsistencies and that you would have shared the other things without warning the readers of those inconsistencies.

This is the trap that I have tried to explain to the readers several times and that justify that this is what we don't want provide in standard due to the high risk of inconsistencies that are very hard to repair and therefore very expensive to repair.

We told you that we can create a specific plugin to define such kind of rules to add them to the JMS Template (sharing tabs) and the JMS Tools.
The plugin that we can create allows, with 2 XML files, defining when a directory is present, the list of tables that are used by this extension (or not).
You can also define a list of tables that can be shared with a wildcard and exclude some specific tables.

When those definitinos are added via plugin to JMS, they are merged with the JMS definitions and allows, depending on the context, deciding which tables must really be copied and which one can be shared. You just need any single rule amoung all the extensions definition that require a sharing to automatically convert the definition of a copy of a table into a sharing.

The solution to your needs exists but you don't want it.

Instead of that, you prefer spend time to develop scripts.
So have fun.

Hello Edwin,

I am tired and sick of having exchanges with you. Because my post had a subscribe activated, I kept on getting your emails. Nor, I will see if I can deactivate this in configuration somewhere.

Most of things you discuss here and just ridiculous. I have exercised my diplomacy and not written many things here. I have seen that you cannot help me and want to get into an endless spiral of baseless discussions.

I have never participated in discussions in the last ten years and after placing this post for the first time, I now even repent on knowing the manner and content with which you place counter arguments.

So from now on, I will not answer to your postings.

It should be very clear that I am not a fool and am an experienced person.

To make allegations, that I have been misleading your users, is nothing but more of a joke with which you downgrade yourself.

Simply because I see your mistakes and exercise restrictive form of postings here, does not mean that I am accepting certain inconsistencies or those kind of things. It is foolish to publish a claim to my postings here and declare that I have accepted inconsistencies and was misleading your users. Just a piece of Garbage.

Also, it is not my business to advise you on the quality of professionalism you should exercise here. This is your site, this is your business and keep doing with it what you want.

However, I will now have to take a distance.

Earlier, you said that one should share assets_id. Otherwise it will not work.

Because I was already sick of such useless discussions, I did not explain these things in-depth.

I did not and do not share assets table but only category table, i.e. to have category IDs shared.

With this, everything is working fine.

It will also work fine without JMS. Site sharing has nothing to do with JMS, once the mappings are properly configured. In my case, they are all correctly mapped.

For example:

If one has 100 tables, all data will be cloned in a slave database, including assets table. Thereafter, if one creates a VIEW of the category table - and NOT ASSETS TABLE - then category IDS will be shared.

Thus, there is full consistency between databases.

Thereafter, if one shares all respective users tables by creating VIEWS, there will be full consistency everywhere.

The principle is that the basic format of all tables in master and slave remains the same.

So for example, if I have DJ-Classifieds and EasyBlog installed in Master (before cloning the slave), I could thereafter decide to share categories table in these extensions. If I have prefix_countries, prefix_states and prefix_cities in that set of 100 tables, then all these tables will be shared based upon creation of VIEWS.

The reason why all these things will work is because the assets table and all other details in a table, which is not shared, is available in the slave as a duplicate data. Here, it does not matter which database but the fact that the data is the same - i. e. - consistent everywhere.

For example, in these 100 tables, I will also have extension table. Their IDs will also be the same. So sharing works everywhere as well.

If I am not sharing extension table, and want to in stall a new extension in one of the slave site, then only that extension will be available in the slave site. It will not interfere other things because it will not be recognized by other sites, including master or slave.

The concept would become, therefore, a shared data in all tables, and some tables will be shared through VIEWS and others not. But they all will be having same IDS and data in to, all 100 of them at the time of cloning.

And thereafter i.e. after the cloning is done, the slave site specific activity begins. User registrations and modifications takes place in Master. Specific Articles will be inserted in a specific slave site pulling category IDs from the master. So, there is really no problem I have observed in my method in the last seven years.

That's why I have repeatedly mentioned that I do not want to have any help from you. You have been bringing me in a position to talk.

Thus, this is now my last posting. I do not care what you will write here and if you do so, I will not want to read or answer it.

Again, you are wrong when you said that a full sharing of the category is OK when you don't share the asset table.
The only case where that could works is when you don't use any ACL because in this case, you don't have any records present inside the ACL to authorize the access to the categories.

When using the ACL and watch deeply, beside the Asset, you also have to share the module, the article, ..., all that are using the ACL to restrict the access to some content. The reason is that you can not give the access to a category or module content or article or .... #1 if in another site the content of such category, articles, module #1 makes reference to another content. So you have to also share them.

So again to the readers be careful when trying to do such kind of sharing.
If you want to do that, as mentioned earlier, we can develop a specific plugin and show you how to setup your first specific sharing that might have limitations.