here in the forum some people have often suggested to use the subdomain instead of the subdirectory: http://myapp.mysite.com
but this is impossible for me, because my clients can’t activate subdomains for my applications.
if I’m not wrong, here in the forum the requests of other users to be able to access a web application like http://mysite.com/myapp/ have been ignored by Xojo staff.
but how should I solve the problem?
leaving Xojo or losing my customers?
for apache it was mentioned to enable mod_proxy and edit the config.
without install/setup your customer (it admin) have to open one port (forwarding) for each xojo web app.
the app itself is registered as windows service and can run also in a own “user” context.
with certificate (.crt) file you have also https.
for me alone i use always apps with a domain + port because it is easy to make ready.
Will all traffic be coming from one IP afdress (for one client) ? If so Nginx (without a custom compile (think that is the correct term)) will not help you with load balancing if you are also considering that.
To be fair, this is absolutely no issue of Xojo nor of your Xojo made app.
It completely up to you how you handle your traffic on your server and Xojo has no chance to change it.
Web 2.0 is very difficult to deploy multiple applications on servers with only IP address, no domain name and limited ports. Web 1.0 can solve this problem by using paths. Many server ports are not managed by ourselves.
At present, it is impossible to access Web 2.0 by path. I’m still using web 1.0 by xojo 2019r3.2.
what i have to do (but not only me, reading other previous threads) is present in Apache directives and probably (but i have no experience) also in HAproxy, Nginx and others.
maybe Apache designs and documents useless directives?
maybe Apache’s reverse proxy is a joke?
but it seems that Xojo only accepts the path “/” and doesn’t work if a subdirectory (e.g. “/myapp”) is present.
If you have time, read the thread I mentioned at the beginning.
I firmly believe that Xojo staff should take care of this problem.
but I’m afraid they won’t take care of it.
neither of this, nor of others (also reported by you, with great evidence, if I remember correctly).
I repeat that to me it does not seem a serious behavior.
nor convenient, because if Xojo Inc. continues to disappoint so many people, sooner or later it will pay the consequences.
for these reasons, I created this new thread, hoping that some of you guys have finally found a solution.
Xojo apps bring their very own webserver to the start, which listens to a specific port, which you can alter.
Your app will never be accasible from a subdomain or a subdirectory out of the box, since this just not possible.
You always have to redirect the traffic internally. For that, you use a reverse proxy, which listens on a particular endpoint, such as another Port, a subdomain or a subdirectory, and redirects the traffic to the port of your application.
Xojo would have to provide plugins for the reverse proxy we’re using (Apache, NginX, HaProxy etc.), if would want to provide an easy setup. That is a tremendous amount of work, and it is just not Xojos task to configure your Server properly.
Traffic handling of Web 2 is similar to Web 2, it just lacks on a CGI-Script which handles the traffic for you over PERL. You still can write something similar by your own.
it make no sense in xojo because you have to use a free port if apache or IIS is the webserver.
http request are port 80 by default
https request are 443 by default
if you wrote at client https://customerdomain.com/newapp
its usually https://customerdomain.com:443/newapp
and because apache is listen at this port you can not use it too in xojo.
without any webserver you would have the nice url and default port for firewall free for one xojo app.
generally each open port (door) is somehow a security risk because the running software behind.
relevant is that security vulnerability are closed / the running web server is updated.
anybody have experience if apache or xojo is more safe?
Take a deep breath and step back for a minute. Ask yourself a few questions:
Is the tool I’m using working for me?
Can I contact Xojo directly and ask them change the framework to work for me? (most companies do respond to financial incentives)
At what point do the costs outweigh the benefits of the tool I’m struggling with?
You’re really trying to turn a screw with a hammer here. With Xojo Web it is not easy to configure an app at a sub-path. The web server within the framwork has a few expectations of url paths.
By trying to run your app at a certain path you start to have to balance which requests need to be sent to the app vs. which are regular static website requests yourself. In my opinion that challenge defeats the purpose of using this rapid app development tool.
There are a lot of things to say about the different points mentioned in this thread, however I don’t want to get into a public back and forth about drawbacks and features. That won’t get us anywhere.
I’m happy to help wherever I can, but Apache and using Windows as a server are simply not something I can comment on. Please reach out to me if you find yourself using Lifeboat and have any questions.