On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Jason Smith <j...@couch.io> wrote: > Woah! Can we all please take a step back and talk about what problem this > solves? Not everyone want to use a proxy to do smart vhosting. Not everyone do mass hosting. Some people just want to host their couchdb on port 80 like some tshirt said.
> > Benoit, your work is *excellent* however on behalf of couchdb > administrators, I must say, these proposed vhost rules look complicated, and > difficult or impossible to support in a reverse-proxy environment. I don't see how it changed compared to previous system. before : check Host, use rewrite rule now: check Host or X-Forwarded-Host , use rewrite rule what was added, is a way to make the rewrite rule smarter. So no change for people using a reverse proxy. More over now work is easier for proxy since they can use the X-Forwarded-Host header which wasn't possible before. > > What exactly is the problem that vhosts and _rewrite cannot solve? I have 1000 apps on 1000 dbs, each of this app want to have a nice domain name. Rather than having 1000 lines i can just do now : $appname.$dbname.mydomain.tld = /$dbname/_design/$appname/_rewrite other : rather than having 2 lines for www. and . I can just do : *.domain.tlld = /db/.... Pb to solve, deploying just a couchdb rather than a couchdb + a proxy ++++++ . > > I have no final opinion. However I think a CouchApp or Futon feature which > manages vhosts might be better, long-term, despite being more work to > implement at this time. I don't see how it could work If vhost isn't implemented on server side it can't work. > - benoit
