I did a patch last year and submitted but it was unforturnatly not accepted. One part was, I believe, that the content of Host header is passed down the chain, but not the rest.
I lost energy on this issue then and didn't continue pushing it. In my opinion it is neccesary for JBoss Portal to be able to support multiple applications on multiple virtual hosts, otherwise it's just a toy.
I'm still interested in this issue, if someone of the portal lead developers are interested to discuss an implementation I'm willing to participate.
In my opinion it is neccesary for JBoss Portal to be able to support multiple applications on multiple virtual hosts, otherwise it's just a toy.
It is quite a powerfull toy and it is quite better then bunch of others, but ...
I agree that it REALLY needs virtual hosting feature with separate independed content repository roots and security domains. Web level does virtual hosting well, AS knows how to deal with, why portal can't?
Unfortunately, I quite new to portal sources but I decided to use it for production environment after testing and evaluationg a lot of portals so I doomed to participate in development in nearest future, as soon as I learn appropriate portal's incantenations :).
If you agree to continue work on your pathes I'll be tester and co-developer if you don't mind.
Please guys point me on some matherials that can help me learn source and development rules here.
Well, you are right. Toy is not the right word as it is very capable. However, for a web application framework it is a very basic requirement to be able to handle virtual hosts. I don't find it very usable for real world applications otherwise...
With that said, I'm still interested in contributing to solving this issue. However, I don't see much sense in setting of patching without first having a discussion about it with the portal developers to agree on the main design. For example, we could never agree on how the portal object tree should look like with virtual host support, which I think is the main issue. The rest was quite straight forward.
So Julien, could we get in touch regarding working on this issue?
But without separation of security domains wouldn't virtual host feature be a toy feature ?
(A discussion on this feature already started in another thread)
I fully agree that support for virtual host is important is some scenarios but i still didn't get in what use case, it would be that useful as of now (without separation of groups of users, unless you "hack" a bit). I'm just curious to hear about *your* use case.
Use case for virtual hosts is simple as a glass of water :) I have 4 separate sites on one server, sites now working under tomcat virtual hosts. There is a lot of my application code but it does not matter. I wish to integrate JBoss portal for all 4 and may be more sites and I do not want to run 4 or more instances of JBoss AS. Obviously, I need different data sources and security domains.
There's nice solution for my use case - light portal http://light.dev.java.net. It works on tomcat as simple war. But development of it seems to be stoped and there's no such good and big community like here. So I decided to join JBoss portal community and go with development...
May be you can suggest workarround for my case without vitrual portals....
BTW, I work on Ukrainian and Russian i18n for portal and it's allmost ready, I'm testing it. Goung to post patch on Jira in 2 days.
when I started to look into this the use case was a site where we had one interface for web and one for mobiles. They needed to be deployed on different virtual hosts but shared the same security domain.
However, I fully agree with you that in most real world use cases it is neccesary to have both virtual host and support for separate security domain. I.e. to be able to deploy different applications on the portal server just as we are used to with Jboss/tomcat.
Glad we are on the same page.
Did you see this thread:
As i hear you, you would be users of such features, and i think we should get this ready before virtual hosting makes total sense. (i agree that virtual hosting can still be used without the notion of community, but in very few cases)