There is some flexibility to it, and while between the lines we heard it
here before, let me speak out clearly, it is a way to allow more
Modularity, as long as Class loading issues can be prevented that would
force you to package the WARs into an EAR in some cases...
Werner
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
>
>