Who Needs EJB 3.1 (lite)?
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?
- Login or register to post comments
- 4809 reads
- Printer-friendly version
(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)
Comments
Sidewinder replied on Sun, 2008/03/02 - 9:47am
Jacob Scherrer replied on Sun, 2008/03/02 - 11:51am
in response to: alpha512
Right.. EJB 3.1 lite is for those of who refuse to use Spring.
Think of someone like, oh I don't know, Gavin...
Rick Hightower replied on Sun, 2008/03/02 - 6:18pm
I personally tend to use Spring but I have already had clients who use EJB 3. I'd appreciate a light version for when I have to use it. In addition, EJB has some nice integration with WebBeans and Seam.
Here are some recent related links:
Kenneth replied on Sun, 2008/03/02 - 9:32pm
Well I'm using EJB3 with pleasure and cannot complain a lot.
My team use both Spring and JEE and we notice an increasing demand from
our clients to use JEE instead of other solution (maybe better or not) .
All I can say is that JEE need some improvements but IMHO it is already good
enough for serious development.
Francois Bertrand replied on Mon, 2008/03/03 - 8:18am
in response to: kennethmark
> Well I'm using EJB3 with pleasure and cannot complain a lot.
+1
I enjoy using JPA in web applications. I can choose 3 implementations, Toplink, Hibernate, OpenJPA: that's the beauty of successful standarts.
I miss transaction demarcation and Entity Manager injection. Waiting for the new EJB 3.1 Lite, I use Google Guice and Warp-persit to provide this functionality.
ff aaa replied on Mon, 2008/03/03 - 12:09pm
Fadzlan replied on Mon, 2008/03/03 - 8:54pm
Why would someone compare POJO and EJB3?
By having EJB3, you actually have ORM, no?
Of course you can use Hibernate,Toplink, etc directly but by having EJB3, you are able to switch ORM engine with no or not much modification on the code.
And of course you might not want to use ORM in all case, which provides a very good case for just using POJO.
Why not compare EJB3 with EJB3.1 lite instead?