...

We currently only worry about Jetty for our users in the Windows casedeployers. The motivation is historic but boils down to an assumption that Windows sysadmins are less confident when working with open source software. To that end the installer started being (and still is IMO) being “too helpful”. For instance there is a “I want to work with AD” button which would be better replaced with just following the documentation,.

Anyway As , as far as the installed Jetty goes:

1. There is exactly one user configurable file: “idpidp.ini”ini. This contains the paths to access the keystores, the keystore passwords and so on. This is The contents of this file are preserved (and updated) during installs. Nothing else is preserved.

2. The assumption is that the user doesn’t care about jetty Jetty beyond “it has to be there” so an optimal solutions do not matter. For instance you always get a backchannel.

3. We have always aimed for the “It kinda-works once the installation is done”. Now that there are things like the “Hello” module, I think this is wrong and we should rely on explicit post install stages (after all the user is expected to put in a proper user facing cert).

...

If the Windows Installer does install jetty Jetty it:

1. Installs an unpacked distribution (jetty-home) alongside the IdP.

...

1. Installs a jetty-base inside the IdP (as a peer to conf and so on). As noted above the jetty base has one user adjustable file.

2. Installs & configures Procrun (an Apache projects to allow you to run java programs as daemons).

   • They keep threatening to end of life it and assure people that there are much nicer solutions.
     My particular favorite recommendation is the one that allows you to inject arbitrary shell scrips to be run at system startup because that's really safe and secure. Frankly if

...

1. • Procrun is ever end of lifed it would be quicker to write the 200 lines of C to do it ourselves.

   • The only interesting thing here is that it does require that

...

1. • Jetty not fork - it is unclear whether this is a Windows thing or a procrun thing.

   • Actually there is another interesting thing. How much of what we are struggling with is because the limits that procrun puts on us?

...

The installation gets a bit grubby on Windows because we want to be able to run the daemon from a low privilege account.

The Jetty base that is used in the installer comes from the same “Jetty base” repois built from an . It is, however and entirely different branch (“10-windows”) from the “11” branch.

I'll note that the Windows branch has been shown to work on jetty11 and jetty 10.

The substantive changes between the “11” branch and the “windows” branch are:

• idp-backchannel.xml: The default credentials location is different. I cannot remember why but there is reason

• Some minor difference differences in idp.xml which I could collect (SystemProperties, not Properties)

• And 6 files

jetty-ssl-context.xml (

...

Windows Only)

This is a changed version of the one distributed with jetty and its maintenance represents the biggest ongoing cost.
https://shibboleth.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DEV/pages/2937454597/JettyBase10ForWindows#etc/jetty-ssl-context.xml describes what needs to be done. As I recall it is all because at one stage (probably even now) Jetty got confused about

• Absolute vs relative paths (which really matters on windows)

• How to do defaulting of values. I think that there are 3 ways to do defaults now

idp.ini.windows (Windows Only)

The installer turns this into idp.ini on a fresh install. It is modified to contain any collected passwords

idp-system.ini (Windows Only)

Contains the “don't tinker with these” settings from the mainline idp.ini

idp.ini.rewrite.property.names (Windows Only)

This deals with the issue when jetty rename properties (or indeed if one of our xml files changes a property name). The (property) name changes this file it contains are made to an existing idp.ini

idp-backchannel.ini, idp.ini (not

...

Windows)

These are not there for Windows, instead they are subsumed into idp.ini.windows and idp-system.ini

...

Install the jetty base is made complicated since

• The Jetty project have been known to changes property names between release and we may need to rewrite the user’s idp.ini. This is historic in as much as they have done it once and we need to be able to always make the changes.

• We need to merge in things like the passwords the user was prompted for.

• We create a keystore for the https port with a self signed cert in it.

• Its all done with ant (which feels old)

• But basically it ‘just works’ .

...

I cannot remember why but for historic reasons we install into the 32 bit folder. Of course this is java so we are actually keyed into what JM JVM is installed.

What are the costs?

Cranking a Windows release is pretty quick (Download the IdP, Jetty, Jetty base -Base and procrun Procrun and run two bat files). I have a note that it might be nice to bundle that into a maven plugin so it can be done by anyone with a Windows machine. Critically this would allow us to use the enforcer to do the signature checks on Jetty and procrun

...

• Making sure that the files we do ship have no not diverged from jetty (https://shibboleth.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DEV/pages/2937454597/JettyBase10ForWindows#Check-Changes )

• Smoke testing the install

• My general unease in building a any thing on my dev box.

And we have this costs every time that the IdP ships and every time that jetty Jetty ships. Subjectively, it is the jetty changes that are the biggest pain because they are no made on our timeline.

So what are the options?

I list these in order of programming effort, least to most.

• Walk away from shipping jetty on any platform

  • I am so bored with Jetty and this installer that this appeals to me. I’ll support the real installer for ever but….

• Bludgeon what we have now into working with V5.

  • The path of least resistance but it does mean that we need to carry on shipping windows specific files (jettty-ant.xml) in the idp. I could even fix that at the same time.

• Bludgeon what we have into two packages. One for the IdP and one for jetty

  • More work to get there (because we are effectively splitting one installer into two, and we still have the same costs with every jetty release.

  • And we inadvertently introduce a test matrix (which we solve by saying “We only support the latest IdP with the latest Jetty”).

• Try to bring the jetty base's together.

  • I have no idea what the problems would be and the wounds from last time still hurt, but I have a gut feeling that the real problem is that on Windows we cannot allow jetty to fork (I don’t even know whether that is because of Windows or because of procrun)

...