Hi Mateusz,
The <profile> in the URL is an unused string. It's there for future
compatibility if we ever add multiple-profile support to OSRM, but osrm-routed
does not look at it currently, other than to ensure that it's there.
Quite a few people use it as a reverse-proxy filtering token - run a reverse
proxy with multiple osrm-routed instances behind it, and forward requests to
the appropriate backend based on the contents of the "profile" field. It works
quite well.
daniel
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Mateusz Loskot <mate...@loskot.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm familiar with role of profile in the OSRM processing flow
> as well as descriptions regarding profile and {profile} parameter
> in the HTTP API docs.
>
> Still. I'm not entirely clear about the profile role in the HTTP API URLs.
>
> My current understanding is this:
>
> 1. profile is actively used during extraction phase of data processing
> 2. user can feed extraction with any custom profile as long as it is
> valid for OSRM
> 3. generated .osrm package corresponds to single profile used during
> processign
> 3. once data extracted and contracted, and complete multi-file .osrm package
> is ready, profile is not used
> 4. osrm-routed serves routing per single .osrm package, so single profile too.
>
> When requesting osrm-route, I noticed
> * custom profile is not referenced anywhere
> * actually, profile seems not used
>
> For example, I have simplistic .osrm package sample
> extracted using custom xxx profile and osrm-routed at
> http://localhost:5000, and both requests
> return the same response valid for the sample data
>
> route/v1/car/30,20;30,15
> route/v1/xxx/30,20;30,15
>
> in fact, any {profile} parameter works
>
> /route/v1/nosuchprofile/30,20;30,15
>
> Now, if I use libosrm API, neither engine config nor any of *Parameters
> require specification of profile.
>
> These observations as well as the fact that osrm-routed
> serves single .osrm package, so no profile ambiguity is actually
> possible, make me think the {profile} parameter in URLs is unused and
> redundant.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> Best regards
> --
> Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSRM-talk mailing list
> OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
_______________________________________________
OSRM-talk mailing list
OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
