Difference between revisions of "How to scale to a large number of journals"

From PKP Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "As open source software goes, OJS is endlessly customizable. You can choose your theme, add header graphics and apply your own stylesheet. OJS also allows you to host a number of...")
 
 
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
As open source software goes, OJS is endlessly customizable. You can choose your theme, add header graphics and apply your own stylesheet. OJS also allows you to host a number of journals in one OJS installation, which makes management  very efficient. But organisations that host OJS journals, seem to end up with one OJS for each client of even for each journa.
+
As open source software goes, OJS is very customizable. You can choose your theme, add header graphics and apply your own stylesheet. OJS also allows you to host a number of journals in one OJS installation, which makes management  very efficient. But organisations that host OJS journals, seem to end up with one OJS for each client or even for each journal.
  
 
The main reasons for this are:
 
The main reasons for this are:
Line 5: Line 5:
 
*Modifications in templates can't be avoided. Templates are shared between all journals in an installation.  
 
*Modifications in templates can't be avoided. Templates are shared between all journals in an installation.  
 
*Userdatabases are shared among all journals in a certain installation (John indicated in Athens there is a solution for this. Anyone?)
 
*Userdatabases are shared among all journals in a certain installation (John indicated in Athens there is a solution for this. Anyone?)
(anymore?)
+
(any more?)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
This increases the cost for daily management somewhat and the cost for patching and upgrading a lot. Can this be improved?
 +
 
 +
 
 +
== Solutions ==
  
  
  
 
[[category:PKP european network]]
 
[[category:PKP european network]]

Latest revision as of 08:26, 21 December 2010

As open source software goes, OJS is very customizable. You can choose your theme, add header graphics and apply your own stylesheet. OJS also allows you to host a number of journals in one OJS installation, which makes management very efficient. But organisations that host OJS journals, seem to end up with one OJS for each client or even for each journal.

The main reasons for this are:

  • Modifications in templates can't be avoided. Templates are shared between all journals in an installation.
  • Userdatabases are shared among all journals in a certain installation (John indicated in Athens there is a solution for this. Anyone?)

(any more?)


This increases the cost for daily management somewhat and the cost for patching and upgrading a lot. Can this be improved?


Solutions