Explicit multi-tenancy support in @ResourceModels

[unic]

Explicit multi-tenancy support in @ResourceModels

[DaniRey]

I think this should not be implemented because of two reasons.

1. It would make reasoning about matching Resource Models complex and error prone.
2. I don't see why this should be needed. If a multi-tenant project requires different resource models for different resources, those resources should simply use different ResourceTypes.

[olaf-otto]

I agree with 1 - it will make matching significantly more complex. However, I definetly see valid cases for 2, for instance deviating models for common resource types such as nt:base or AEM specific types such as dam:Asset, cq:Page or cq:PageContent.

I am wondering whether we could make at an explicit "tenant" feature out of this to simplify the resolution, something like

@Tenant("id"...)

And somehow map this to Sling's tenant support or some configuration of the form

tenantId -> root paths

See also https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SLING/Multitenancy+Support - we'd have to investigate the progress there first...

[olaf-otto]

Hi @DaniRey, could you have a quick look at the state of the Sling multi-tenancy support shipped with AEM 6.1?

[olaf-otto]

I am closing this as won't fix. We'll get back to this once programmatic multi-tenancy in sling is mature.