I’ve gotten a few questions about this item recently, so I just wanted to give a more detailed status. We still have this on the backlog; it hasn’t been forgotten. But we don’t have a clear timeline for when we would get to it right now. The “unplanned” status just means that it can’t be tied to a timeline, but we do think this is a valid request that we would like to have in the product.
Given that a Azure AD B2C tenant should only be used for configuring Azure AD B2C, would having programmatic API’s to configure all of the Azure AD B2C settings be useful or is there more that you are looking to achieve using ARM templates?
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.Tamas commented
Agree with Dimka M: static web hosting w/o custom domains and ssl is next to worthless.This was already possible.
1 voteTamas shared this idea ·
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.Tamas commented
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).
Nothing planned short term but a great ask. This is an item that could potentially be contributed if interest to do so earlier. Hoping we get this planned soon.
Moving this work item to unplanned, as it is clear that this request is no for a global throughput limit.
We do now offer the ability to limit your maximum instances in the Premium plan, which will allow you to avoid swamping downstream resources. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/functions-premium-plan#plan-and-sku-settings
We prioritized that above a max call per X limit, because our only control to limit throughput is to outright deny some number of requests above a threshold.
Keep the feedback coming!
Azure Functions Team
Just since it’s been a while, I wanted to reconfirm that this is planned.