<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>











<rss version="2.0" xmlns:jf="http://www.jivesoftware.com/xmlns/jiveforums/rss">



<channel>
    <title>Support Forums: Message List - New Article: EJB 3.1 - A Significant Step Towards Maturity</title>
    <link>http://www.theserverside.com</link>
    <description>Most recent forum messages</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
        <generator>Jive Forums Silver 5.5.30 (www.jivesoftware.com)</generator>
    
    <pubDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 01:20:05 -0400</pubDate>


    <item>

        <title>Re: New Article: EJB 3.1 - A Significant Step Towards Maturity</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><blockquote>Who on earth needs EJB any longer? So why so many people waste their time creating specifications nobody needs? Why don't they simply let this dinosaur die in peace?</blockquote></blockquote>...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:16:47 -0500</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:16:47 -0500</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:16:47 -0500</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Jan 13, 2010</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Chris Golfman</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: New Article: EJB 3.1 - A Significant Step Towards Maturity</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[Paulo,...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 18:15:23 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 18:15:23 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 18:15:23 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 9, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Reza Rahman</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: Spring users should welcome this</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[Great post!  I agree with everything you said.  All camps keep inovating, and leapfrogging each other.  That great for Java!  And it's great to have multiple, viable (and similar in approach) solutions, that learn from each other, all built on Java.]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:47:42 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:47:42 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:47:42 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 23, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Jeff Salter</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Spring users should welcome this</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[As a Spring user since 2003, I think EJB 3.1 looks very promising. And I think if you're a satisfied Spring user, you should be very pleased to see how EJB 3.1 looks....]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:09:19 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:09:19 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:09:19 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 22, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Robert Smith</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>1</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Excelent!</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[For me, EJB 3.1 fixes all that was missing from EJB 3.0...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:13:29 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:13:29 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:13:29 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 22, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Mihai Chezan</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: New Article: EJB 3.1 - A Significant Step Towards Maturity</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:41:02 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:41:02 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:41:02 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 22, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>augustientje bloem</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>I like this from the article ...</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA["we fist clean and rearrange the house, and only then we bring the new furniture"- even though there were some new features as well, like the support for interceptors. Now that the cleaning is done, it is time to benefit from it and to go one step...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:14:38 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:14:38 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:14:38 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 22, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Jeff Salter</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: New Article: EJB 3.1 - A Significant Step Towards Maturity</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>Next to the beginners argument, there is the argument that very small programs don't necessarily benefit from using an interface for their business classes. I think this is the official argument used by the EG. In no way however is it...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:20:24 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:20:24 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:20:24 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 22, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Will Hartung</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>1</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>RE: Enterprise OSGi</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>The new features in EJB 3.1 are very good but I am not sure that this will save Java EE from crash. I am using Java EE from many years (8+) and in the same time I am already familiar with Enterprise OSGi. Comparing both technologies, I...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:11:48 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:11:48 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:11:48 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 22, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Daoud Abdelmonem Faleh</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: Here We Go Again</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>At the end of the day, EJB in whatever form is a <br>distributed access framework.</blockquote>...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:08:01 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:08:01 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:08:01 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 22, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Will Hartung</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>RE: Singleton bean per User session</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>Now we have to wait EJB 4 to have Singleton bean per User session. As idea the Stateful bean is similar but not exactly. For example if one Stateful bean is used inside of the EJB Container there is no guarantee that all calls from the same...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:01:33 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:01:33 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:01:33 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 22, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Daoud Abdelmonem Faleh</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: New Article: EJB 3.1 - A Significant Step Towards Maturity</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>I'm not sure I follow, but let me try. It seems to me you are confusing a number of concepts. You can't really attach sources for the reference implementation of any aspect of Java EE unless you happen to be running on exactly that reference...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:39:09 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:39:09 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:39:09 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 22, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Grzegorz Grzybek</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Singleton bean per User session</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[Now we have to wait EJB 4 to have Singleton bean per User session. As idea the Stateful bean is similar but not exactly. For example if one Stateful bean is used inside of the EJB Container there is no guarantee that all calls from the same user session...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:13:00 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:13:00 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:13:00 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 22, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Miroslav Nachev</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>1</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Enterprise OSGi</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[The new features in EJB 3.1 are very good but I am not sure that this will save Java EE from crash. I am using Java EE from many years (8+) and in the same time I am already familiar with Enterprise OSGi. Comparing both technologies, I definitely assert...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:03:07 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:03:07 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:03:07 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 22, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Miroslav Nachev</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>1</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: New Article: EJB 3.1 - A Significant Step Towards Maturity</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=54346</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[I don't understand why some people are so angry about the enhancements in an existing specification/programing model. If you are happy with framework X and it fulfills all your requirements then go for it. Nobody forces you to switch. These are different...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:24:52 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:24:52 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:24:52 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>Apr 22, 2009</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Mohammad wrk</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>



</channel>
</rss>

