Thank you for your feedback. We are currently in public preview of static website hosting for Azure Storage to enable this scenario. Check out the blog post here for more details: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-storage-static-web-hosting-public-preview. The feature set includes support for default documents and custom error documents for HTTP status code 404.
For any further questions, or to discuss your specific scenario, send us an email at email@example.com.
Agree with Dimka M: static web hosting w/o custom domains and ssl is next to worthless.This was already possible.
We definitely recognize the popularity of this feature, and we discuss it constantly during the planning phases. However there are certain technical limitations in the system that add a large amount of development cost. Because of the cost and the fact that there is a workaround available, other features get prioritized over this one.
That being said, please keep voting for it. The popularity of the feature does help bring it up and makes us reconsider every time.
Apologies for the delay.
We’re doing some research both on the specifics of this ask as well as what it would take to support this.
Is the ask here to do the same thing that regular Azure AD does (see: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/enterprisemobility/2014/12/18/azure-active-directory-now-with-group-claims-and-application-roles/) or is are there different requirements around this for Azure AD B2C?
You can now use the Azure CDN to access blobs with custom domains over HTTPS. See the following article for instructions on how to do so: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/storage-https-custom-domain-cdn. Having talked to a number of customers, we concluded that this solution addresses many scenarios where the need for HTTPS access to blobs with custom domains exists.
Native Azure Storage support for using SSL to access blobs at custom domains is still on our backlog. We would love to hear about your scenarios where using the Azure CDN is not an acceptable solution, either by posting on this thread or sending us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Serving static pages from a blob is a mess. Cannot specify default content and SSL is not possible using custom domains.
Why I need SSL? Now that's a different story:
I'm using Azure B2C directory and Azure functions. B2C is only allowing HTTPS callbacks. Which is a bit too strict. There is one usecase where it is not necessary:
I have a single web page application and the token is returned using html anchors. (#hash). The connection to B2C is under https, so as the redirect directive when the authentication was finished.
Then the next GET won't include the part of the URL after the #, so it will never leave the browser, only the app could read it (then redirect away from it).
This item has been merged with the “Support group based authorization for functions” item.
We are looking at ways to expose this capability, groups being one particularly useful fine-grained option for AAD.
Azure AD / B2C has groups, but they are not visible directly to the function. It would be good to access them or if possible have authz against them.
The Storage Emulator is owned by the Storage team, so you should file a separate feedback item for that.
We’re in the process of porting the Azure Functions runtime and Core Tools to .NET Core, which will enable development on Mac/Linux.
Please watch this issue for updates: .NET Core migration #1576
This is a good idea and something we want to support but still need to do more investigation on our part. In the meantime as a mitigation the Azure Logic Apps service bus trigger does now support sessions and session-enabled queues/topics.
The under review status update is still valid, just posting again since its been a year.
the current plan is to provide throttling controls on a per instance base, which would enable limiting the amount of executions. This can work for scenarios where downstream resources cannot be strained or even DOS attacks.
As an update to this:
It’s important to first understand the distinctions between our GA, preview, and experimental languages. This is addressed in the docs here:
Beyond that, if you have a specific ask for one of the bindings to have better example code (or in a different language), we can revisit this.
We do have preliminary support for B2C. Please see the following blog post for an overview:
There are some known issues, such as working with password reset policies. We will continue to work on this.