Perhaps I'm missing something, but can't see how the implementation of the Route53 entries honours the site_prefix variable.
The www record is not taking the site_prefix variable https://github.com/TechToSpeech/terraform-aws-serverless-static-wordpress/blob/master/r53.tf#L3.
Also the apex record will always manage the apex record, which may not be the desired outcome.
On my scenario, i have got an existing website with an already set www and apex records which i don't want to change. I want an additional recordset to test this module that would run in parallel with the existing website.
Woudn't it make more sense for this module to only manage the recordset defined and in site_prefix and give the users the flexibility of managing their apex and www records differently?
That could also help address #43, by giving users the possibility of setting the non-canonical address to another endpoint which would handle the redirect.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but can't see how the implementation of the Route53 entries honours the
site_prefixvariable.The
wwwrecord is not taking thesite_prefixvariable https://github.com/TechToSpeech/terraform-aws-serverless-static-wordpress/blob/master/r53.tf#L3.Also the
apexrecord will always manage the apex record, which may not be the desired outcome.On my scenario, i have got an existing website with an already set
wwwandapexrecords which i don't want to change. I want an additional recordset to test this module that would run in parallel with the existing website.Woudn't it make more sense for this module to only manage the recordset defined and in
site_prefixand give the users the flexibility of managing theirapexandwwwrecords differently?That could also help address #43, by giving users the possibility of setting the non-canonical address to another endpoint which would handle the redirect.