Our group finds EARs extremely useful. Particularly early in the implementation of our product roadmap. Our process tends to be aggressivly iteratative. So, we prototype very quickly.
Sometimes, features we initially intended to isolate (microservice but with the benefit of all the goodies of a full EE container) find their way back from a WAR back into the core EAR and vice/versa meaning elements that seemed initially to benefit from more tight coupling end up refactored our to WARs.
I'd love to keep it in the standard as it provides a proven architectural approach to project assembly but doesn't prevent more modular/distributed/micro patterns.
Keeping it provides utility. Keeping it doesn't prevent other patterns.
BTW, I'm also in the "cheap seats" meaning not on the working group but would love to help if there is room for input/participation from small fry shops.
to my background: I have been developing enterprise applications
for more than 10 years, mostly as EARs. So I am mainly a User of
EE and was never part of a EE working group. My opinion about
EARs after years is: It's an awful disaster if you're trying to
develop an ear platform independently. So why should it be
Today I wonder what can be achieved with an EAR, which could not
be achieved easier and clearer with a clean microservice
So I'm suggesting removing EAR support from Jakarta EE. This
makes the platform easier to learn and more lightweight.
If you like, you can read the following discussion. It's about
the question of how to package shared EJB libraries in one ear.
And it shows how awkward it is to talk about EAR deployment
What is your opinion about the future support of the concept of
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit