domain pointer question

By default the scheme property is set to use relative URL's, so make sure you don't have that parameter set to use full url see the documentation. Thus one other thing to check is if you have the set in your template, if so try removing that and test.

cheers

Don't remove, just make sure it is not cached:

if he leaves this in then it will always use the installed site domain URL in the full link resource, correct? Unless this pulls the actual URI used to access the site and uses it vs. the URI used during the install/setup??

Example:
Ran setup on (http://first-domain-name.com) then the site_url would always return that domain name vs. if I actually access the site from http://live-domain-name.com

Just curious as this has been an issue I've run into in the past with multiple domains pointed to a single site instance. Agreed that this is not ideal to use mutiple domains names for the same site however sometimes the client overrules and/or custom TV's are used to swap the branding.

Cheers

Cheers, that works fine, not sure about the htaccess because the mod rewrite I tried previously also is on the source site so rewrites that url?, but it works fine. Thanks opengeek.

And @charles, i think it s a normal situation where more domains point to the same webserver IP, eg google.com googel.com gogggle.com etc.

Thanks.

Quote from: charless at Dec 21, 2011, 11:39 AM

if he leaves this in then it will always use the installed site domain URL in the full link resource, correct? Unless this pulls the actual URI used to access the site and uses it vs. the URI used during the install/setup??

It will use the HTTP_HOST the client sent as a header unless the web server is configured to send a specific HTTP_HOST. MODX dynamically constructs the site_url on each request in the config file from $_SERVER['HTTP_HOST'], though you can override this via System or Context settings. The only thing that will not dynamically change is the base_url which is appended to the url_scheme and http_host settings.

great, thanks for the clarification