Multiple apps per domain - possible?

kylotan

On Webfaction I had a situation where it hosts a Wordpress blog at "domain.com", but it also routes any urls starting "domain.com/whatever" to a second app (in my case a symlink to a static site).

It doesn't appear this is possible on Opalstack, When I try to set this up, I see "If the domain is not on the list it may be on another site route. Remove the domain from the other site first."

Is there a simple workaround? I'm guessing that what I want might be possible with a separate Nginx instance that does the necessary proxying, but I'd rather keep it simple, and I'll use another subdomain if necessary.

sean

kylotan what @danielb said.

What you do is:

Go to https://my.opalstack.com/routes/ to see your list of site routes.
Click the edit icon in the right-hand column for whichever site.
Add whatever app on whatever URI under the "Application Routing Info" section.
Save your changes and wait a few minutes for it to gel.

We've been using the "routes" terminology in the UI here and there for site-related stuff:

Site route: a website
App routing: assigning apps to website on a URI paths
Domain routing: assigning domains to websites

Do any of you find that confusing? We can always tweak stuff if needed.

danielb

It's definitely possible but it's set up slightly differently than webfaction. Instead of adding another site route like maybe you did with "website" in wf, edit the site route already using the domain, and then down under Application Routing Info you can add another app to /whatever.

kylotan

I didn't think it was confusing, until I read this thread!

I already have a route blog-route which maps an app blog to a base URI mydomain.com/

I wanted to add another 'route' , to map an app static-site to something like mydomain.com/whatever.

So it doesn't make sense to me to "edit the site route already using the domain" - this is a different route.

I've also named the route to correspond to the app that I am routing - again, if I attach another app to that, the naming breaks down. I called this route "blog-route" because it maps my blog to the domain.

It would be less confusing if it was framed as me editing a "site" rather than a route (because I'm adding a route to part of a site, not editing an existing route). To be fair it does say 'site' once you click through - it's mostly that top-level "site routes" list that throws me off.

sean

kylotan I wanted to add another 'route' , to map an app static-site to something like mydomain.com/whatever.

So it doesn't make sense to me to "edit the site route already using the domain" - this is a different route.

In that scenario what you're doing is adding an "app route" to an existing "site route".

kylotan It would be less confusing if it was framed as me editing a "site" rather than a route

Yeah, that's the part I was most concerned about. "Routing" apps and domains to a site sort of makes sense, but there's no clear upstream thing to which a "site route" is routing things.

Thanks for the feedback, very useful!