This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Java Buzz
by dion.
Original Post: EJB 3.0: Backwards compatibility optional?
Feed Title: techno.blog(Dion)
Feed URL: http://feeds.feedburner.com/dion
Feed Description: blogging about life the universe and everything tech
Linda DeMichiel was asked if EJB 3.0 would have to be backwards compatible. She immediately said yes.
What would it mean if the backwards compatibility was made "optional"?
Containers like Spring could support EJB 3 (they are not going to put in support for EJB 2.1 and below!!!)
Other projects could ramp up to support the more lightweight EJB 3 model
Other vendors could make a choice on whether they want to support a backwards compatible version. They could even offer two versions!
Would the world be so bad if this was an option? Users would have a choice. If the backwards compatibility means a lot to them, they can choice a vendor which has the optional "Supports 2.1" checkbox.
The programming model is changing so much, that I think it would be fair to not burden EJB vendors with The Old Ways.
What are the reasons to mandate backwards compatibility?
Politics: Current EJB vendors have already implemented it, and can use this as an advantage. It keeps the likes of Spring out of the game.
The usual reasons why we like backwards compatibility
Personally, I wish they made it optional, and we could break out on the new road with EJB 3.
Previous Topic
