Bug 204190 - [NEW PORT] www/jetty9: Servlet Engine and HTTP Server
Summary: [NEW PORT] www/jetty9: Servlet Engine and HTTP Server
Status: Closed FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Only Me
Assignee: Jimmy Olgeni
Keywords: needs-qa, patch
: 202720 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Reported: 2015-11-01 13:13 UTC by David Harrigan
Modified: 2015-12-24 16:31 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:

SHAR file. (18.58 KB, text/plain)
2015-11-01 13:13 UTC, David Harrigan
dharrigan: maintainer-approval+
SHAR File (18.95 KB, text/plain)
2015-11-09 17:48 UTC, David Harrigan
dharrigan: maintainer-approval+
SHAR File (19.02 KB, text/plain)
2015-11-17 18:04 UTC, David Harrigan
dharrigan: maintainer-approval+

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description David Harrigan 2015-11-01 13:13:16 UTC
Created attachment 162672 [details]
SHAR file.


I've put together a new port for Jetty 9. This superceeds the EOL'ed version of 8.1.15 currently found in the ports www/jetty directory.

I look forward to feedback on it :-)

Comment 1 Thomas Zander freebsd_committer 2015-11-07 12:50:31 UTC
Can you check for the same plist issues as with bug 204128. Non-changing content in LOCALBASE, owned by root:wheel whenever possible and variable files/dirs, possibly changing at runtime, in /var
Comment 2 David Harrigan 2015-11-07 18:41:44 UTC
Hi Thomas,

A point about this one. Jetty recommends that user content is kept separate (jetty.base) which is configurable for each instance of a webapp deployed to Jetty. The jetty.base is self contained, in that it contains the log files, binary files etc., that makes up the webapp. 

Where this jetty.base is located is entirely up to the user, they may choose not to put it /var, but may put it, say /srv or /usr/local/www, or /raid/myapp. 

I make this clear in the pkg-message.in file.

What would you suggest in this instance?

(personally, I would treat this like an installation of, say, wordpress - I would create a jail, install jetty and just use the same directory that jetty installs into to deploy the jetty.base directory/files).

Thank you.

Comment 3 Thomas Zander freebsd_committer 2015-11-08 09:18:07 UTC
(In reply to David Harrigan from comment #2)

Traditionally, there is WWWDIR where www server ports store their content, defaulting to ${PREFIX}/www/${PORTNAME} (see ${PORTSDIR}/Mk/bsd.port.mk) if the port does not set it to a specific value. Have a look at the apache or nginx ports for elaborate examples.
If there are no technical reasons to do this differently, I'd say it's a sensible choice. The important part really is that we try to separate user content from package installation.
Comment 4 David Harrigan 2015-11-09 17:48:42 UTC
Created attachment 162935 [details]


Updates. I now move the demo directory into /usr/local/www/jetty.

Updated installation message.

There's a new version of Jetty out shortly (a few days). So, even although this can be tested and feedback given, I'll wait until 9.3.6 is out and use that as the version to use for installation.

Comment 5 Thomas Zander freebsd_committer 2015-11-11 19:14:42 UTC
(In reply to David Harrigan from comment #4)

Fantastic ... sometimes reading twice helps. It seems I have overlooked your remark that jetty 8 is EOL'd. If so, it would make much more sense not to introduce www/jetty9. Instead you should update the www/jetty port to a recent upstream version and submit a patch (in a new bug report) instead of a new port.
Comment 6 David Harrigan 2015-11-11 20:19:13 UTC

Thank you Thomas for your feedback. I'm not too sure I can do that. You see, there are lots of people out there still running with Jetty 8, since it runs with Java 8 and below. However, Jetty 9 only works with Java 8 or above. 

Therefore, Jetty9 is altogether different.

I can (of course) do a patch for www/jetty to bring it up to the supported version of 9.2.13 (Java 7 and below). 

But www/jetty9 is for Java 8 and above only.

I hope that clarifies :-)

Comment 7 Thomas Zander freebsd_committer 2015-11-15 11:26:28 UTC
(In reply to David Harrigan from comment #6)
Comment 8 Thomas Zander freebsd_committer 2015-11-15 11:27:34 UTC
(In reply to David Harrigan from comment #6)

Just added olgeni@ , the jetty maintainer to CC.

@olgeni: What do you think? Should we get a jetty9 port or update the existing jetty port?
Comment 9 David Harrigan 2015-11-17 18:04:51 UTC
Created attachment 163256 [details]


This is the latest SHAR file that brings Jetty 9 up to the latest version of 9.3.6.v20151106. This is the current version that I would intend to release as Jetty9 port. Please can this be considered for inclusion within the ports tree.

Thank you.

Comment 10 Jimmy Olgeni freebsd_committer 2015-11-17 20:10:00 UTC
(In reply to Thomas Zander from comment #8)

I'd say to move www/jetty to www/jetty8, then add www/jetty9. People with the current www/jetty will stay on 8 unless they upgrade to www/jetty9 and avoid surprises. I'll have a look at this ASAP.
Comment 11 David Harrigan 2015-11-20 17:29:20 UTC

I think this is a great idea - it would enable those running Jetty 8 to continue if they are using Java 8, 7, 6 etc, and for those running Java 8 (or above!) to run with Jetty 9!

Thank you - If there is anything I can do, please let me know.

Comment 12 Thomas Zander freebsd_committer 2015-11-23 05:55:15 UTC
OK Jimmy, then it's best for you to take over.
Comment 13 commit-hook freebsd_committer 2015-12-06 20:13:44 UTC
A commit references this bug:

Author: olgeni
Date: Sun Dec  6 20:12:59 UTC 2015
New revision: 403154
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/403154

  Add support for Jetty 9.

  - Add www/jetty9 to track the latest branch of Jetty

  - Move www/jetty to www/jetty8

  - Add LICENSE and fix RUN_DEPENDS in www/jetty8

  www/jetty8 is officially EOL'd upstream but still seems to be in use.

  PR:		204190
  Submitted by:	David Harrigan

Comment 14 pguinard 2015-12-24 16:31:14 UTC
*** Bug 202720 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***