Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Why not dropping EARs in Jakarta EE?

Why are we still discussing this?

Java EE had profiles (web and full) support since v6. It is for good reasons that the web profile has been implemented as a subset of the full profile and not as a stand-alone profile, Applications that work with web profile should not break when working with full profile thereby assuring upgrade-ability and portability. If CDI or any other platform technologies has any problems inter-operating with the full profile then it is the responsibility of the respective platform technology stakeholders to address that in their own specs/implementations unless there are valid issues/limitations with any of the full profile specs/implementations. In addition to the EAR support mandated by the JEE full specs, several app servers have provided their own proprietary classloader mechanisms to make packaging and deployment more flexible albeit, at the cost of vendor lock-in/portability.

Modifying EAR support will have severe impact on several existing enterprise packaging and deployment scenarios especially involving shared libraries and entities (such as JAXB, JPA). Also the concept of having a inter-application-wide parent classloader facilitates several implementation approaches such as scoped objects and simplified transaction boundary realization - stuff that are not easy to implement over microservices (and are often ignorantly dismissed as anti-patterns).

JPMS support is fairly new and its spec has been validated largely against the JDK libraries. Even then, I see it as augmenting the EAR classloader specs rather than replacing it.

Marking EAR support as optional/deprecated will only cause more problems as more and more specs(and TCKs) would start ignoring it.

Personally, I do not see any strong argument against the EAR support so long as enterprises are still using monolithic deployments. Though micro-services are increasingly becoming popular, the monolithic deployment approaches are still relevant in several use cases.

Besides, the issue raised by the OP has already been addressed in the original GH issue.


On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Dmitry Kornilov <dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think that Jakarta EE should have profiles. Full profile should be as much backwards compatible as possible with previous version (read Java EE). It should support EARs. Other profiles (Web, Micro?) may not support EARs, or it should be up to implementations to support it.

— Dmitry

On 30 Apr 2018, at 11:55, Alexander Salvanos <salvanos@xxxxxx> wrote:

Hi all,
while I agree, that dropping EAR's feels like a good idea, for large scaled Java EE projects in huge companies, this could result into costs we could avoid, by keeping backward compatibilty.
Just like RMI-IIOP we should begin at the most with the term PROPOSED OPTIONAL and later OPTIONAL for a long period, before it can be dropped.

Gesendet: Montag, 30. April 2018 um 11:27 Uhr
Von: "Adam Bien" <abien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
An: "Jakarta EE community discussions" <>
Betreff: Re: [] Why not dropping EARs in Jakarta EE?
HI Ralph,

EARs are helpful to deploy multiple WARs at once. E.g. a main microservice with a corresponding sidecar.

However: I didn't created any EARs since Java EE 6,



> On 28. Apr 2018, at 10:06, Ralph Soika <ralph.soika@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
> 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 called 'standard'?
> Today I wonder what can be achieved with an EAR, which could not be achieved easier and clearer with a clean microservice architecture?
> 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 questions.
> What is your opinion about the future support of the concept of EAR?
> ===
> Ralph
> _______________________________________________
> mailing list
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
_______________________________________________ mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top