`embed` embeds the files with the path you specified, so if you look into
your `static` variable, the files will be available as
`files/static/yourfile`.
This means there won't be issues with filename collisions etc... if you
specify multiple patterns
If you want to serve your files in your `files/static` directory under the
`/static/` url, your handler should be : `http.Handle("/static/",
http.FileServer(http.FS(static.Sub("files"))))`
That is, for everything under the `/static` url, serve from the embedded
filesystem, skipping over the `files/` prefix in the embedded fs.
On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:30:37 PM UTC+2 Amnon wrote:
> What does
>
> go list -f '{{ .EmbedFiles }}'
>
> display?
>
> On Monday, 5 July 2021 at 06:28:54 UTC+1 tjgur...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I have been testing the (relatively) new go:embed feature for a few days
>> and I came across this situation which I wasn't quite sure what was causing
>> it so I thought asking here would help.
>>
>> Consider the following code:
>>
>> ```golang
>> package main
>>
>> import (
>> "embed"
>> "fmt"
>> "log"
>> "net/http"
>> )
>>
>> //go:embed files/static
>> var static embed.FS
>>
>> func main() {
>> http.Handle("/static/", http.StripPrefix("/static/",
>> http.FileServer(http.FS(static))))
>> log.Fatal(http.ListenAndServe(":8000", nil))
>> }
>>
>> ```
>>
>> Now the files in directory files/static are very much accessible but the
>> issue I seem to have is that it was accessible under the url
>> /static/files/static/filename instead of just being accessible through
>> /static/filename where filename exists inside the directory files/static/
>>
>> I tried looking up some examples online and it seems that I have to use
>> the fs.FS and fs.Sub and only expose (not sure if this is correct
>> terminology) the new fs.Sub which would mitigate the issue I was having.
>>
>> My question is about the reason why the Go team went with this
>> implementation? Because in the above program I wasn't able to access the
>> files in files/ directory even though there were files in it and was only
>> able to access files inside the files/static files directory. So there
>> doesn't seem to be a point in this implementation unless I'm missing
>> something, and I'm sure its the latter case haha. If anyone knows about why
>> they went with this implementation, I would be very grateful.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Taj
>>
>>
>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/8b19378b-dfa0-4268-b2ce-bd2b9d95c7ben%40googlegroups.com.
