Engel
(-.-)
September 15, 2020, 9:05pm
1
(Maybe this should go into the category “site feedback”, idk)
From the docs we have this example:
route /api/* {
uri strip_prefix /api
reverse_proxy localhost:9000
}
route
is used to keep the order of the directives.
I can read that uri
comes before reverse_proxy
anyways. So why is route
used here?
Wouldn’t this do the same?
handle /api/* {
uri strip_prefix /api
reverse_proxy localhost:9000
}
(Which could be shortened to handle_path /api/* {reverse_proxy localhost:9000}
)
So, what am I missing about the route
directive here, or is the example just … not well-chosen?
That example was written before handle_path
was a thing, so yeah, I suppose it’s just a bad example.
If you’d like to propose a better one, you can find the site source here:
Engel
(-.-)
September 15, 2020, 9:58pm
3
The example has nothing to do with the shortcut of handle_path
??
The handle_path
was just a site-note to the handle
directive.
The question is route
vs. handle
.
Unless you say the example was written before handle
was a thing, your message is unrelated to my question.
No, I mean that the example was somewhat more valid when handle_path
didn’t exist. handle
and route
are basically interchangeable in this situation, since the mutual-exclusivity of handle
and the directive order overriding of route
don’t make a difference here (handle
's mutual-exclusivity could matter, but not in this isolated example, on its own).
Engel
(-.-)
September 15, 2020, 10:02pm
5
That answer is much different from your original one.
So, the example wasn’t well-chosen. As the special thing about route
isn’t being used.
Thx.
system
(system)
Closed
October 15, 2020, 9:05pm
6
This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.