jsr342-experts@javaee-spec.java.net

[jsr342-experts] Re: War vs EAR packaging

From: Markus Eisele <myfear_at_web.de>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 07:42:34 +0200

Turning the priorities around and making WAR the default would be fine
with me, too.
Except the fact that I don't like to see all the EAR possibilities
within the WAR format.
So, as long as we keep the additional packaging options for e.g. RARs
with EAR format only.

EARs should stay the default for those with complex enterprise
requirements which need
a lot of freedom to adjust stuff for different deployments.

WARs should become the default for everyday work with up to mid-size projects.
The context-root definition should make it into the next WAR dd and I
also would like
to reevaluate the EJB lite restrictions if they are too tight for the
new default WAR approach.

- Markus

On 30 August 2012 16:21, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree. War should be turned to first citizen packaging, ears becoming the
> exception.
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Adam Bien <abien_at_adam-bien.com> wrote:
>>
>> HI Antonio,
>>
>> IMHO WARs are the new EARs. I use almost exclusively WARs in all my Java
>> EE 6 projects.
>> EAR packaging is more flexible e.g. you can bundle a RAR with an EAR, what
>> doesn't work with a WAR,
>>
>> IMHO we should empower WAR to be as far as possible an EAR in Java EE 7.
>> One lacking feature is a standard way to specify the context root...
>>
>> adam
>> On 29.08.2012, at 14:36, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Today I'm working on an existing Java EE 6 application running on JBoss
>> > 7.1. I was surprised to see an MDB packaged in a war file... and it's
>> > working ;o)
>> >
>> > It looks like JBoss has taken some liberty from the spec and allows MDBs
>> > (non web profile component) to be packaged in a war instead of an ear. But
>> > to be honest, I like it. So I'm wondering : when should I use an ear file ?
>> > The first answer would be "when I want to package several war together". As
>> > a developper why would I have other constraints ? Why couldn't I package an
>> > MDB in a war file ? And what about @Remote interfaces in a war file ? Why
>> > not ?
>> >
>> > Are there technical limitations/constraints that can't be solved (on the
>> > app server implementation side I mean) that would not allow to package any
>> > component in a war file ? The ear file would just stay to package war files
>> > (like a russian doll packaging mode).
>> >
>> > Any thoughts ?
>> > Antonio
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect and Java Champion
>
> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France