Recommended configuration approach

[marc0s]

Hi,

I've been reading through the README.md and the latest changes and I've noticed that the configuration example uses Component instead of VirtualHost.

I've been using the VirtualHost statement for configuring the push service like in the following:

VirtualHost "push.example.org" enabled = true;
http_host = "push.example.org";

-- WARNING: in production *PROTECT* the /v1/settings path if enabled!
push_appserver_debugging = true
push_appserver_fcm_key = "SomeKeyForFCM"
push_appserver_apns_cert = "/etc/prosody/certs.d/apns_certificate.pem";
push_appserver_apns_key = "/etc/prosody/certs.d/apns_privkey.pem";

modules_enabled = {
    -- Generally required
        "dialback"; -- s2s dialback support
        "disco"; -- Service discovery
        "rawdebug";
        "posix";
        "push_appserver";
        "push_appserver_apns";
        "push_appserver_fcm";
};

modules_disabled = {
    "register";
};

Are there any relevant differences in the result of configuring this module in one way or another? If, choosing the Component approach, would I need to define two different names for each of the push type handlers (fcm and apns)?

Thanks!

[tmolitor-stud-tu]

If you use a virtual host you will automatically load all sorts of modules onto the virtual host not really needed. Components are more lightweight.

As for the multiple push backends: I updated the readme to also reflect such a configuration.

[marc0s]

Hi,

On 18 February 2020 07:32:59 GMT+01:00, tmolitor-stud-tu notifications@github.com wrote:

If you use a virtual host you will automatically load all sorts of modules onto the virtual host not really needed. Components are more lightweight.

Understood. That makes sense.

As for the multiple push backends: I updated the readme to also reflect such a configuration.

Thanks a lot!