All - It is becoming more and more clear that UI proxying is going to continue to be a moving target and we need to determine how to simplify the authoring and maintenance of UI rewrite rules.
While I haven't put a lot of thought around it or even POC'd it yet, I am thinking about the possibility of leveraging the new port-mapping feature for UIs. This may at least be able to eliminate the need for the "gateway/topology" patch prefix by the fact that we dedicate specific ports to specific topologies. The downside of this is that it contradicts one of our early tenants of enabling deployments to have a single host:port available to access all of the REST API resources that they require. We may be able to justify that UIs be on a separate port however. Then we will also need to deal with backward compatibility issues for deployments that are currently using the existing service definitions - we may be able to accommodate this using the versioning built into service defs. Anyway, I just thought that I would start a discussion on this and see what folks have to say. Thoughts? --larry
