On Sep 28, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Bruno Rocha wrote:
> With this setup, I have no access to admin...
>
> https://pythonbrasil.web2py.com.br/admin/design/pytalks
>
> This worked before, any change on routes?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> default_application = 'pytalks' # ordinarily set in base routes.py
> default_controller = 'default' # ordinarily set in app-specific routes.py
> default_function = 'index' # ordinarily set in app-specific routes.py
>
>
> routers = dict(
>
> # base router
> BASE = dict(
> default_application = 'pytalks',
> domains = {
> 'pythonbrasil.web2py.com.br':'pytalks',
> 'talks.python.org.br' : 'pytalks'
> },
> applications = ['pytalks','admin'],
> controllers = 'DEFAULT'
> ),
> )
>
Below is part of an exchange on the developers list about a change to rewrite's
domains processing.
I don't think you want (or need) the domains= spec at all in your case. It was
a bug in the rewrite code that allowed it to access admin before. I could be
missing something, but see if it works if you just take out the domains= spec
(or else let me know why that wouldn't work).
If for some reason I'm not seeing here you really need the domains= section,
you may need to define a third domain for access to the admin app. But I don't
offhand see the need for that here.
> I'm reposting this on -developers for comment. I don't want to break
> anything, but I do think that the current implementation is wrong, and that a
> domain map should override a chance app-name match.
>
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, vapirix wrote:
>
>> So I'm attempting to set up the usage scenario of:
>>
>> domain1.com -> load app 1
>> domain2.com -> load app 2
>> etc. etc.
>>
>> I need domain1 to NOT have access to app 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.
>>
>> That all works using the router's "domain" settings. Obviously you run
>> into the problem of: domain1.com loads app1, but domain1.com/app2
>> loading app2, so I use "exclusive_domain = True", and then I have to
>> do domain1.com/app1/ to load the app without raising an exception,
>> which seems counter productive. Besides that, even with
>> exclusive_domain = True, I can do domain1.com/app2 to load the second
>> app. Is there any way to do what I'm attempting to do here? I'd rather
>> not have to set up separate web2py installs for the tons of tiny apps
>> I do for my clients that get 1 hit every 6 months.
>>
>> What can I do here, friends?
>
> I'm looking at this logic a little more closely, and it seems to me that the
> current code is wrong in a way that doesn't have to do with enforcing
> exclusive_domain. It's easy to fix, but I wonder if someone is relying on the
> wrong behavior.
>
> The problem is this. Suppose you enable domain routing thus:
>
> domains = {
> "domain1.com" : "app1",
> "www.domain1.com" : "app1",
> "domain2.com" : "app2",
> }
>
> Right now, domain2.com/app1 will load app1 because the code recognizes app1
> as an app, and that takes priority over the domain. But that's a bug. It
> *should* load app2 because the domain specifies it. And in that case, "app1"
> in the URL will be most likely interpreted as a *function*, as it should, I
> believe.
>
> That is, the domain should take priority in app determination if the domain
> is in the domain map, meaning that we don't really care whether "app1"
> happens to be the name of an app in another domain. So (unlike what I said
> the other day), this does not immediately result in an exception. It probably
> *will* result in an invalid-function exception, but that's just normal
> processing.
>
> And that's why exclusive_domain is only a check on output. In fact, I'm
> wondering if it should be the default (or not there at all, but rather always
> true).
