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 <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> |
Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris
JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> |
Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>