Co-bundling Jetty ?

[Rod Widdowson]

> I respect the opinions that this isn't an issue to worry about, but I
> don't agree. One big reason discussed on the call is that the obvious
> "non-standard" port for the server is 8443, which overlaps with the
> "typical" port used for SOAP. 

I know to my own pain that if you do not use 80/8080 443/8443 you will trip
up many people because their firewall managers just will not open any ports
other than those (since opening 8443 is obviously safe and opening 8442 is
obviously unsafe).

> I think that flies if we can credibly say that the majority of people can
> use the mandatory defaults.

... or not use the jetty install at all?  I assume it is taken as read that
people will be able to _trivially_ opt out of using the jetty we bundle and
just plant the war file into whatever container they want  - I'd guess that
OSU will not be deploying based on any jetty which is bundled with an IdP
Distro....


>> I do *not* think that it is a good
> >idea, but I will float the idea of only bundling in a windows
environment.
> 
> It may be that the setuid problem makes that a legitimate direction.

It is a realtively low cost way of dipping one's toe in the water.  Aside:
as I recall there may be a copyleft-related issue with the system service
stub that Jetty uses, but at least two of the developers could write this
from scratch in an afternoon...

Rod