On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote:
> We're looking at developing apache/nginx scripts, and I was thinking about > documenting the webserver requirements. I think Pulp probably has to be > rooted at / on any given site so that it can host live APIs. Users can > still vhost multiple sites at other hostnames so I think it's ok, but I'm > interested in what others think. I wrote this up here [0] for some > discussion on the issue. > > I like Pulp owning all the URLs for a hostname. This enables plugin writers to provide any API endpoints they need without having to deploy a separate WSGI application. Was there any good reason why this was not done for Pulp 2? > [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3114 > > -Brian > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
