Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

AdminClientProperties.getServiceUrl() ignores server.address if preferIp=false #295

Closed
weeniearms opened this issue Oct 11, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

@weeniearms
Copy link
Contributor

When binding to a specific address (i.e. server.address set to something other than null/empty) urls are using the machine hostname, unless you set preferIp=true. Therefore, the generated urls will not be reachable by the admin server if the hostname does not map to the address provided as server.address.

Although, setting preferIp=true resolves this, it also makes it impossible to use an alternative hostname (which you can set as server.address, e.g. server.address=customhostname) instead of an IP address.

@joshiste
Copy link
Collaborator

joshiste commented Oct 11, 2016

Do I understand you right:
If server.address is set the url should use the hostname for server.adress and not localhost.
right?

@weeniearms
Copy link
Contributor Author

Exactly. I already have a fix for that, so I could submit a PR if you'd like.

@joshiste
Copy link
Collaborator

so I could submit a PR if you'd like.

The enhancement sounds reasonable, so go for it!

@joshiste joshiste added this to the 1.4.3 milestone Oct 11, 2016
@weeniearms
Copy link
Contributor Author

weeniearms commented Oct 11, 2016

Would it be possible to also include this in the 1.3.x branch? And if yes then should I submit a PR with a change to the 1.3.x branch or should this end up on master first?

@joshiste
Copy link
Collaborator

closed in favour of #296

@joshiste joshiste removed this from the 1.4.3 milestone Oct 11, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants