Getting "downloads" app running on subdomain, possible?

[SJ77]

Hi

Anyone know how I can get only my "downloads" app running on a subdomain? Still working in sync as designed with my installed IPS package of course.

All parts of my IPB package should work as standard setup with exception being subdomain for downloads app only.

Is this possible?

[opentype]

No. It’s also not allowed. It’s a new domain and would require another license. 

[SJ77]

1 hour ago, opentype said:

No. It’s also not allowed. It’s a new domain and would require another license. 

A sub domain is a new domain? 

While I thank you for the reply, I don’t agree.

If I am only running 1 instance of my app who cares if it’s on mysite.com or sub.mysite.com ? A sub is just that, a sub of the same domain.

The violation is trying to run multiple versions of your package while only paying for one. That is not what I am asking here. This would all be 1 install connected to the same DB 

EDIT: maybe you are telling me the system would be confused and see it as a license violation. That makes sense. Philosophically I don't think IPS company would have a problem with this but if the code is written such that it can't work I do have a second license I could apply here if need be.

[opentype]

19 minutes ago, superj707 said:

A sub domain is a new domain? 

Yes, it is. No point in debating it. It’s a fact. 

19 minutes ago, superj707 said:

This would all be 1 install connected to the same DB 

Sure. Doesn’t change a thing. I don’t make the rules. I just tell you that IPS has those rules. You cannot “distribute” your installation across different domains (of any kind). It’s not allowed and not a stock feature in the software currently. 

So the answer to “possible?” is “no”. Feel free to request it as a future feature. 

[SJ77]

39 minutes ago, opentype said:

Sure. Doesn’t change a thing. I don’t make the rules. I just tell you that IPS has those rules. You cannot “distribute” your installation across different domains (of any kind). It’s not allowed and not a stock feature in the software currently. 

So the answer to “possible?” is “no”. Feel free to request it as a future feature.

I understand the rules to be that it's not ok to pay once and use the purchase for 2 installations. Fairly certain that is the intention here.
If you indeed have information that would prove otherwise would you mind sharing your source so that I can read it myself?

Quote

Yes, it is. No point in debating it. It’s a fact. 

 

Wikipedia states "A subdomain is a subset of the domain ". Furthermore there is no need to purchase a sub domain if already owning the main domain. So while I do respect that there is some gray area here, I think it's a stretch to outright state it's a different domain. It's a bit more tricky than that. 

To your point I can certainly understand why IPS would code things to treat a sub domain as a different domain as one could setup an entirely different website there and effectively use their purchased installation twice. (not good) but I can't find anywhere on this site where they state using a sub domain for the SAME install is against the rules. Would you mind providing this documentation please?

Thank you

[Aiwa]

@opentype is correct. A subdomain does actually qualify as another domain. site.domain.com is not the same as site1. domain.com. Regardless of how you have the back end set up, they are two different sites and if they were static html pages on the server two different folders loading different files. 

He is also correct about Downloads. The only app in the IPS suite that can function outside of the normal root is Pages. 

I'd post your suggestion in Feedback, ask IPS to give administrators control to run one of the core apps outside of root instead of limiting to just Pages. But that's a fight to take up with IPS, not argue semantics with another client. 

 

https://invisioncommunity.com/legal/standards#ipb

[SJ77]

10 minutes ago, Aiwa said:

@opentype is correct. A subdomain does actually qualify as another domain. site.domain.com is not the same as site1. domain.com. Regardless of how you have the back end set up, they are two different sites and if they were static html pages on the server two different folders loading different files. 

He is also correct about Downloads. The only app in the IPS suite that can function outside of the normal root is Pages. 

I'd post your suggestion in Feedback, ask IPS to give administrators control to run one of the core apps outside of root instead of limiting to just Pages. But that's a fight to take up with IPS, not argue semantics with another client. 

 

I agree Aiwa,  I am not even sure how we ended up discussing semantics but you're correct there is no benefit there.  The take away here is that it's coded in such a way that it's not currently possible. I do maintain that they likely set it up this way to avoid theft. It's the only logical explanation. What I am trying to do isn't theft.

I will have to talk with them to see if there is some way it can be allowed. It's likely so low of a priority though that even if they say "yeah that's fine" it will never get any proper support.

Mostly I am trying to find a way to avoid cloudflare limitations and running that app on a sub domain would fix everything for me.  Should be a way to change something in the PHP telling the system to interact with downloads differently. I just don't understand the global variables well enough to make that tweak.

[SJ77]

 

request placed.

[Aiwa]

I believe I vaguely recall the position you're in with respect to downloads and cloudflare and why you want it 'outside' of cloudflare... Or at least delivering downloads outside of cloudflare... 

You might submit a support request to IPS and explain the problem and see if they can come up with a solution.  Maybe an alternate storage solution for just the downloads application will work where the files themselves are delivered over a different domain, or the uploads are processed over a different domain.  Don't recall the specific issue..