idp 3.0.0 catch 22

[Jim Fox]

FWIW, it seems I can use jetty 8 for now.  Is there any
reason it won't work for some capability I haven't tested?

Jim



On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Cantor, Scott wrote:

> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:02:20
> From: "Cantor, Scott" <cantor.2 at osu.edu>
> To: Shib Dev <dev at shibboleth.net>
> Reply-To: Shib Dev <dev at shibboleth.net>
> Subject: RE: idp 3.0.0 catch 22
> 
>> But I think we should file a bug, they are basically asking people who don't
>> agree to file one.
>
> There's one open now [1]. One comment even mentions Shibboleth. My read is that they don't get why HTTP is actually much worse than AJP for proxying (performance is not the only criteria), but I'm not going to argue with them, it's simpler to focus on the features that are lost like REMOTE_USER and the standard client certificate extraction method in Java.
>
> My suggestion is that you add your voice to this by noting the need for REMOTE_USER support, and that I mention this to the Board since Jetty's lead seems to be hinting that if somebody sponsored the work, they might do it.
>
> Jetty >>>>>> Tomcat at this point, so I would be much happier if we could get them to fix it.
>
> -- Scott
>
> [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=425244
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to dev-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net
>