Over a million developers have joined DZone.
Gold Partner

Who Needs EJB 3.1 (lite)?

· Java Zone

The Java Zone is brought to you in partnership with Azul Systems.   Discover how to stop tuning and get back to coding with Azul Zing.

There is an interesting statement about technologies dedicated to a given profile in the J2EE 6 spec. You may have noticed the descriptions of something called EJB 3.1 (lite).

"EJB 3.1 (Lite)" refers to the idea of allowing implementations to deliver a subset of EJB 3.1. The contents of this "lite" subset are wholly undecided at this point, but as an example it might include the annotation-based programming model introduced in EJB 3.0, restricted to session beans with local interfaces (only). In other words, you could write an annotated session bean with a local interface and use it in your Web Profile-compliant product (assuming (B) is accepted, that is). But, for example, you could not write a EJB 2.1-style session bean, or an EJB 3.0 message-driven bean, or a EJB 3.0 stateful session bean with a remote interface.

It seems that someone is obsessed with EJB. I don't see any advantage of EJB 3.1 (Lite) over POJO except complications that affect everyone.

  • deployment and packaging - WAR vs EJB JAR, classloader isolation etc.
  • need for an application server - forget about Tomcat or Jetty
  • complexity overhead - you still need a lot of about EJB as a bean lifecycle, transaction, JNDI etc.

From a developer's point of view there isn't much difference between EJB full and EJB lite. Both of them bring the same level of complexity and make development more complicated. I don't think that EJB 3.1 could be useful for developers.

So, who really needs this EJB 3.1 lite?

The Java Zone is brought to you in partnership with Azul Systems.   Discover how to stop tuning and get back to coding with Azul Zing.

Topics:

{{ parent.title || parent.header.title}}

{{ parent.tldr }}

{{ parent.urlSource.name }}