[frontends] allow for arbitrary frontend settings #12

Open
opened 2022-06-24 16:11:44 +00:00 by floatingghost · 4 comments

currently akkoma supports only :primary and :admin settings for the frontend - this means you can have only one user-facing frontend at a time

this should be expanded to allow any number of frontends mounted at a given path - in the style of masto-fe being hosted at /web

this will need some consideration given that most frontends assume they are running at / - do we need a specific build that does not assume that? i wouldn't be keen on rewriting anything dynamically

currently akkoma supports only `:primary` and `:admin` settings for the frontend - this means you can have only one user-facing frontend at a time this should be expanded to allow any number of frontends mounted at a given path - in the style of masto-fe being hosted at `/web` this will need some consideration given that most frontends assume they are running at `/` - do we need a specific build that does not assume that? i wouldn't be keen on rewriting anything dynamically
floatingghost added the
enhancement
configuration
labels 2022-06-24 16:13:40 +00:00
floatingghost added this to the 3.0 release milestone 2022-06-26 17:25:02 +00:00
Author
Owner

i had the solution to this revealed to me in a dream last night

subdomains

SUBDOMAINS

how could i not have seen it

everything wants to run on /, so let's... let it

reverse proxies can have n domains, and we can probably use phoenix to route based on it

i had the solution to this revealed to me in a dream last night subdomains SUBDOMAINS how could i not have seen it everything wants to run on `/`, so let's... let it reverse proxies can have n domains, and we can probably use phoenix to route based on it
Contributor

close?

close?
Author
Owner

close as in "should we close this?" or "are you close?"

i got it working but i'm yet to find a satisfying flow to get it to work

close as in "should we close this?" or "are you close?" i got it working but i'm yet to find a satisfying flow to get it to work

close as in "should we close this?" or "are you close?"

i got it working but i'm yet to find a satisfying flow to get it to work

How close is this to getting made a feature?

> close as in "should we close this?" or "are you close?" > > i got it working but i'm yet to find a satisfying flow to get it to work How close is this to getting made a feature?
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: AkkomaGang/akkoma#12
No description provided.