On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Adrian Rossouw <adrian@daemon.co.za>wrote:

On 16 Jul 2009, at 4:16 PM, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:

As others said, you either use symlinks (which forces you to have two

...

directories per site), or the new sites.php feature of Drupal 7.

Using that, you can have a contrived name for each site (even site1, site2, or an md5 hash for each site), and redirect the site in it.

The trick is to not use sites/default for each site from now on, and only use a unique identifier. That identifier can be the same when you develop the site, and remains the same when you deploy the site.

Just because a work around exists doesn't mean the current behaviour isn't wrong.

What are the reasons for the files not being relative ?

Relative or absolute can be debated. I think that relative is more elegant and more portable. But this is for stuff in the files table only. Once you publish a site and you reference static things in it as <img src="/sites/ site1.example.com/files/blah.jpg" /> you are stuck with that path. The sites.php method avoids this. You can have sites/12345/files/blah.jpg, and it is no longer dependent on the domain name. Development and testing can happen to the same path. So, yes, I agree that relative is better, but it does not solve all the issues that sites.php does. -- Khalid M. Baheyeldin 2bits.com, Inc. http://2bits.com Drupal optimization, development, customization and consulting. Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. -- Edsger W.Dijkstra Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. -- Leonardo da Vinci