Allow for additional trees to store data on separately

[PeteDuncanson]

See: https://twitter.com/pgregorynz/status/1271336940852244480

The content tree holds content that is routable (ie it has an URL). Sometimes though you want to store data that doesn't make sense to link to but you want to reuse elsewhere. It would be great to have a separate tree for these items. Sort of a repository tree.

This can be achieved currently with clever use of nodes on the content tree but it can cause confusion for editors and headaches for developers.

I'm hopeful that @pgregorynz @JeffreyPerplex and @mattbrailsford might chip in and flesh out this feature request so the discussion from twitter can continue in a more structured manner there.

[PeteDuncanson]

Related: https://twitter.com/jhauge/status/1214920997427712002

[leekelleher]

The concept of a "-2" content tree has been floated around for a while, (I recall long chats with @zpqrtbnk about this at previous CG retreats 😃).

Here are a couple of photos I grabbed from CG19's Dream Corner...

Also linking in @skttl's recent issue #7867 for cross-reference purposes.

[louisjrdev]

This would be great, there has been many an occasion where I have wanted IPublishedElements in a tree structure for content organisational purposes; but not necessarily needed a full-on IPublishedContent item.

[pgregorynz]

I think the concept can go even further. Multi tenancy in Umbraco currently is not that great. So it would also be awesome extra trees could be routable as well If required by attaching a host header.

[louisjrdev]

@pgregorynz I wonder if that opens up a wider discussion on how best to handle multi tenancy in umbraco, lost methods seem to have some tradeoff. My 2¢ is that same code base but separate back office environment and DB / cache etc would be best

[nul800sebastiaan]

Hi all! We had a nice chat about this recently at HQ and there sure is a lot of ground to cover as to what we should do with the tree separation!

We talked about: do you really want trees because that's what we are accustomed to and that's what you can imagine being the solution or should we be thinking differently, can we get a different type of thing, a proper "repository" and how, and where, etc (as Jesper Hauge suggested on twitter).
Indeed multi-tenancy came up as well. All in all we concluded that this is an excellent topic for an upcoming RFC we would like to create. So please feel free keep adding your thoughts and ideas in here for inspiration for that RFC!

[umbrabot]

Hiya @PeteDuncanson,

Just wanted to let you know that we noticed that this issue got a bit stale and might not be relevant any more.

We will close this issue for now but we're happy to open it up again if you think it's still relevant (for example: it's a feature request that's not yet implemented, or it's a bug that's not yet been fixed).

To open it this issue up again, you can write @umbrabot still relevant in a new comment as the first line. It would be super helpful for us if on the next line you could let us know why you think it's still relevant.

For example:

@umbrabot still relevant
This bug can still be reproduced in version x.y.z

This will reopen the issue in the next few hours.

Thanks, from your friendly Umbraco GitHub bot 🤖 🙂